I hate this movie


Because they made Clayton a villain, next to whom even Rokoff looks like a naughty kid. Why was it necessary?! Clayton was never a villain. He was a weakling, once spoke ill about Tarzan, and did not tell Jane that Tarzan was the true heir of Lord Greystock (the same fact that Tarzan hid from her) - but it does not make him a villain. He suffered so much for many days before he died.

OTOH, Tarzan was by no means the 100% innocent hero as he is portrayed in the film. In the sixth novel it is described how he murdered in cold blood natives who never did any ill to him. IMO the worst was placing Rabba Kega - who never harmed Tarzan - inside a cage meant for capturing a lion, knowing well what would happen to him. Indeed, the poor man was torn apart by a lion. It did not satisfy Tarzan, so he made a "joke" that cost more lives. Some hero indeed.

He once kidnapped a boy named Tibo from a local village, so he wouldn't be alone. The poor kid's health deteriorated because he couldn't eat what Tarzan and his fellow apes eat, and he nearly died of malnutrition - but it didn't bother Tarzan. Only by chance the boy was reunited with his mother. To be fair, Tarzan saved Tibo's life twice - but Tibo would never been in those dangers, had Tarzan not kidnapped him.

Even after Tarzan became somewhat civilized, he still have those mean traits: in the fifth book, he spotted a lion charging at a native. Tarzan watched it as if was a TV show, and intervened only when he remembered he lost a meal because of that lion, but then the lion has already injured the man fatally. Had he intervened earlier, the native might have been saved.

His son was not better: in the fourth book, he used to kill natives who never did him any harm. He nearly killed Meriem, when her back was turned to him - simply because he could.

reply

I think this movie is great.

reply

Of course Tarzan is being sanitized and purified in this version. It's a Disney movie after all and their adaptations of classic stories usually has a user friendliness to them, as well as the protagonists. It's what Disney's always done, so of course it's no surprise why Tarzan is innocent in this version.

While that being said, I've personally wouldn't mind if this version were actually more true to the original novel. Though the Disney version has it's moments of drama and trauma, it's still a light-hearted, politically correct and sanitized. Due to the dept of the premise that Disney made (Tarzan's inner turmoil between two worlds), I certainly wouldn't mind if this version were more deeper (and Disney has made more harrowing and explicit movies before, so it wouldn't be a huge stretch for them to make "Tarzan" more blatant).
Heck, the screenwriter Tab Murphy initially wrote a treatment that was quite close to Burroughs' novel. It's a remarkable move indeed (for a Disney movie), but it was sanitized and simplified to fit the Disney mold. Who knows how Murphy's original treatment would've been like.

reply

[deleted]

and what was the point 2 reply johanesse? had he/she somethin' 2 do with it?

reply