The Legend of Tarzan (2016)

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by levcore

Yes, as soon as production on Tarzan wrapped he was off to start Fantastic Beasts. I believe it was even in his contract that he get to begin FB immediately after production on Tarzan.

I read an interview with the editor where Yates had complained about WB butchering the movie in the edit.

Hmm, interesting. The movie kinda sat on WB shelves a bit longer than usual but I figured it was because they were allowing Yates the time necessary to finish it properly AND get FB done. Guess not. Still, for something that the studio apparently mangled, it doesn't always seem that way. I wonder what else Yates wanted to get in there.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Hmm, interesting. The movie kinda sat on WB shelves a bit longer than usual but I figured it was because they were allowing Yates the time necessary to finish it properly AND get FB done. Guess not. Still, for something that the studio apparently mangled, it doesn't always seem that way. I wonder what else Yates wanted to get in there.

It does lack character development, so maybe that was butchered in the edit. They still made the dumb decision to film a wilderness Africa adventure in a warehouse in Britain though, which is a core issue with the movie in my humble old-school opinion. It's not like Africa is an alien planet, you can actually go there.

[Chaotic]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It does lack character development, so maybe that was butchered in the edit. They still made the dumb decision to film a wilderness Africa adventure in a warehouse in Britain though, which is a core issue with the movie in my humble old-school opinion. It's not like Africa is an alien planet, you can actually go there.

Filmmakers don't like shooting on location anymore.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Filmmakers don't like shooting on location anymore.

Many don't, yes. And f**k them for that.

[Strapped4Cash]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Filmmakers don't like shooting on location anymore.

I know.

I was so super-excited to see The Martian.

But then I heard that they didn't even go to most of those locations.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Hmm, interesting. The movie kinda sat on WB shelves a bit longer than usual but I figured it was because they were allowing Yates the time necessary to finish it properly AND get FB done. Guess not. Still, for something that the studio apparently mangled, it doesn't always seem that way. I wonder what else Yates wanted to get in there.

This is what editor Henry Braham said:

"Interesting. I saw it with David Yates in Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago, and he said, “It’s more of a movie now than a film.” And I know what he meant. What he meant was it’s become more two-dimensional. So whether that’s a Warner decision or how that’s come about – actually, David’s probably somebody who’s not pushed around too much – the journey the movie’s taken is actually a lot of scenes, a lot of the layering of drama has been taken out of it, and you pretty much go from A to B pretty quickly. Now when you consider the market for this kind of entertainment, it kicks off on 8,000 screens in China, it’s big in Russia, you get it. You’re talking to such a broad cultural spread that maybe you see the argument for that. I think if you want to make something really personal, you’re going to have to be super-powerful and committed and prepared to take a big box-office bomb if it doesn’t work. Or you do a smaller, more personal movie, which may be a lot more interesting as a film but is not going to have the same outreach as a piece of entertainment."

[levcore]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It does lack character development, so maybe that was butchered in the edit. They still made the dumb decision to film a wilderness Africa adventure in a warehouse in Britain though, which is a core issue with the movie in my humble old-school opinion. It's not like Africa is an alien planet, you can actually go there.

According to Wikipedia (yes not the best resource I know) it would have been even more expensive for them to actually shoot in Africa. I guess the studio wanted to save money and considering the budget was like $175Mil or something like that anyway, lord knows how much more it would have cost.

It just seems kind of crazy how much this movie cost for what we got on screen and the thought that it wouldn't have just been cheaper to go to Africa and shoot.

[StingingVelvet]

I really doubt a $175 million budget movie would be cost-prohibited from shooting in South Africa or wherever. If that is somehow the case then the movie industry needs a thorough re-think. I would guess the more likely scenario is that warehouses full of green screen are cheaper, easier and more comfortable for the actors and crew.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I really doubt a $175 million budget movie would be cost-prohibited from shooting in South Africa or wherever. If that is somehow the case then the movie industry needs a thorough re-think. I would guess the more likely scenario is that warehouses full of green screen are cheaper, easier and more comfortable for the actors and crew.

Yes I agree with what you say, it seems unbelievable that a budget like that couldn't afford to actually go to Africa. It's just Hollywood types being lazy. The most they did was send a helicopter out to shoot scenery shots.

I think this is one movie where the green screen approach really failed and hurt the look of the movie. Avatar did the whole convincing jungles thing great 7 years ago so it seems nuts that in 2016 this movie looks so fake.

[beware]

Watched this tonight on blu and I found it out that all of "London" was muted cool colors and the opening with Jane, almost every woman in back is wearing purple or a brighter color, was that deliberate to showcase her beauty more?

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It does lack character development, so maybe that was butchered in the edit. They still made the dumb decision to film a wilderness Africa adventure in a warehouse in Britain though, which is a core issue with the movie in my humble old-school opinion. It's not like Africa is an alien planet, you can actually go there.

True re: lack of character development, but the characters themselves are largely archetypes anyway. It's an issue but not a huge one for me. Shooting it all on greenscreen was annoying, though; usually the CGI was well-done enough for me not to notice, but there are sequences where it sticks out really badly. Even if there are concerns about shooting in Africa, I dunno why they couldn't have found another location to substitute for it. Yates and Stuart Craig built tons of sets for Harry Potter, it's not like they're averse to it.

Originally Posted by levcore

This is what editor Henry Braham said:

[Show spoiler]
"Interesting. I saw it with David Yates in Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago, and he said, “It’s more of a movie now than a film.” And I know what he meant. What he meant was it’s become more two-dimensional. So whether that’s a Warner decision or how that’s come about – actually, David’s probably somebody who’s not pushed around too much – the journey the movie’s taken is actually a lot of scenes, a lot of the layering of drama has been taken out of it, and you pretty much go from A to B pretty quickly. Now when you consider the market for this kind of entertainment, it kicks off on 8,000 screens in China, it’s big in Russia, you get it. You’re talking to such a broad cultural spread that maybe you see the argument for that. I think if you want to make something really personal, you’re going to have to be super-powerful and committed and prepared to take a big box-office bomb if it doesn’t work. Or you do a smaller, more personal movie, which may be a lot more interesting as a film but is not going to have the same outreach as a piece of entertainment."

The demands of the international marketplace strike again. I hate (but unfortunately understand) how he says that if you wanna make a more personal movie, you basically have to know your movie will bomb...

[Britbuffguy]

I remember this getting some glowing reviews and 'Worth a blind buy' comments around Black Friday, and having finally seen it....this was just awful. On every level minus the score.
Doesn't help that with Robbie and Waltz, they cast my two most loathed actors working today.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

Doesn't help that with Robbie and Waltz, they cast my two most loathed actors working today.

Wha?

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

I remember this getting some glowing reviews and 'Worth a blind buy' comments around Black Friday, and having finally seen it....this was just awful. On every level minus the score.
Doesn't help that with Robbie and Waltz, they cast my two most loathed actors working today.

Well why did you bother watching it then lol. Seriously if two of the four leads are your most loathed actors working today what's the point in checking out the movie

[warrian]

This movie, the final cut, the blending of the effects etc. really took a hit from having Yates required to move on to Fantastic Beasts so soon afterward. The post-production was pretty much handed over to the studio out of necessity.

As it is, they got an okay movie and reasonable hit, but the whole time I was watching it I felt like the film just wasn't living up to what it seemed to want to be. And I really want to like this kind of movie.

[Batmon77]

John Carter , Tarzan, Flash Gordon, The Spirit ,The Phantom and the Shadow need to be handled much better.

Id love a new Flash and Doc Savage projects.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

I remember this getting some glowing reviews and 'Worth a blind buy' comments around Black Friday, and having finally seen it....this was just awful. On every level minus the score.
Doesn't help that with Robbie and Waltz, they cast my two most loathed actors working today.

I don't think the movie was awful at all... but it was completely unmemorable. I bought it on 4k since it was one sale and watched it no more than a month or 2 ago....

and I cannot remember a single scene!

[laidbacklarkin]

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

I remember this getting some glowing reviews and 'Worth a blind buy' comments around Black Friday, and having finally seen it....this was just awful. On every level minus the score.
Doesn't help that with Robbie and Waltz, they cast my two most loathed actors working today.

Godawful should be more like it, so pointless and disjointed in narrative, it just doesn't know what it wants to be. I went in with the same notion, influenced by some glowing critics' reviews. Its about time Waltz retired if he can't do anything different from what he's done before on screen again and again - that man is a one act wonder since 'Inglorious Bastards'. But truly the one that hits rock bottom in this drivel is Sam Jackson - did he really need this one apart from a paycheck ?

[MJD64]

"When I watch a movie that's mostly CGI, I'm disengaged"- Denis Villeneuve

"This CGI bullshit is the death knell of cinema"-Quentin Tarantino

Though not directed at this film in particular, I feel those two statements perfectly sum up what was wrong with The Legend of Tarzan. A Tarzan movie without a single live animal or live shot of vine-swinging is no Tarzan movie at all.I had to constantly remind myself I wasn't watching a cartoon while watching this.

[schlock]

Originally Posted by MJD64

"When I watch a movie that's mostly CGI, I'm disengaged"- Denis Villeneuve

"This CGI bullshit is the death knell of cinema"-Quentin Tarantino

Though not directed at this film in particular, I feel those two statements perfectly sum up what was wrong with The Legend of Tarzan. A Tarzan movie without a single live animal or live shot of vine-swinging is no Tarzan movie at all.I had to constantly remind myself I wasn't watching a cartoon while watching this.

I'd definitely direct those comments at this movie. This is a complete CGI monstrosity. It was definitely a cartoon. Practically everything was CGI. A train coming into the station? Don't get a real train, just CGI it. Everything in this film looked cartoonish, fake and BAD - this is SyFy Channel bad CGI, and most CGI barely has any tangible realness to begin with, but this is the worst. I don't even think half the stuff with real actors was real. Tarzan running? Just CGI the real actors' faces onto the fake CGI characters running, etc. and pretend that they are really there. I haven't seen the latest Star Wars, but poor Peter Cushing must be turning in his grave, regardless that his 'estate' approved of making him live again via CGI.

I found this latest Tarzan film to be absolutely wretched in every possible way, painful to sit through. Not one moment felt 'real'. They ought as well have just made a cartoon instead of a fake feature film that's created 90% on a computer. Painful, painful, painful. Only reason I would subject myself to this kind of crap these days is that I have every other Tarzan movie/tv-show etc. (and yes, many aren't that great, but most are actual movies!!!) on Blu or DVD and this particular new CGI-CARTOON feature will sadly break that trend for me. Horrendous.