AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAA

[Nothere]

Still haven't seen Tarzan yet, so I don't know if it's any good. But I heard an interesting theory. The problem isn't that people aren't seeing them, but the size of the budget. Lone Ranger had it' problems but was the real problem the near 200 million budget?

[Badger]

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.

 

While, I like my sci-fi, one that thing that has always lured me to such things as pulp is that unknown thing away from civilization, that can give you a relief from the technological marvels of modern day.  Of course, in that actual environment, I don't last 2 minutes, but it is always fun to dream.

[bigdamnhero]

Still haven't seen Tarzan yet, so I don't know if it's any good. But I heard an interesting theory. The problem isn't that people aren't seeing them, but the size of the budget. Lone Ranger had it' problems but was the real problem the near 200 million budget?

I think you have a point that part of the problem with Hollywood today is the mentality that every movie has to be a Blockbuster. They don't really make mid-range movies anymore; they go from small budget rom-coms and Oscar bait straight to huge, bloated extravaganzas that need to make $1B just to break even. A lot of these big Epic Failures still get seen by tens of millions of people.

[Badger]

And a lot of the really good movies of olden time, probably would be considered the mid-range movies of their day.

[bubba smith]

Still haven't seen Tarzan yet, so I don't know if it's any good. But I heard an interesting theory. The problem isn't that people aren't seeing them, but the size of the budget. Lone Ranger had it' problems but was the real problem the near 200 million budget?

everythin costs more these days

[Badger]

I think you have a point that part of the problem with Hollywood today is the mentality that every movie has to be a Blockbuster. They don't really make mid-range movies anymore; they go from small budget rom-coms and Oscar bait straight to huge, bloated extravaganzas that need to make $1B just to break even. A lot of these big Epic Failures still get seen by tens of millions of people.

 

Well, let's be honest, sometimes people also go to certain movies in droves even knowing there is no chance at it being good, solely because of a name attached to it.

 

If one were to make Star Wars: Waterworld.  You'll still get 100 million fans to come.

[Spence]

 

 

If one were to make Star Wars: Waterworld.  You'll still get 100 million fans to come.

 

Weeelllllll.....   maybe 99 million.   Waterworld was pretty bad

 

[Badger]

Heh, unfortunately not enough would be scared off.

[Nothere]

Well I finally saw it. I approve. Found it strange that he lost to the gorillia. After all being able to go toe to toe with one is one of Tarzans defining traits. Still it was a good movie.

[Rails]

Maybe Tarzan goes toe-to-toe with average gorillas, but that one is a Super-Ape, or at least a Heroic-level ape?

[starblaze]

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?

 

Seth Rogan just never did it for me.