The Legend of Tarzan has already grossed $356 Million world wide and counting.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=tarzan2016.htm
Personally, I really enjoyed the movie and would love to get a sequel.
If it has legs in the big foreign markets, maybe. And I'd love a sequel too.
shareIt's underperformance in North America is quite worrying though. It will end around $125-130 million. Worldwide it can end anywhere between $350-400 million.
If they make a sequel, there will be some serious budget cuts.
I think it's done okay in North America in that it's done better than expected, especially when you consider the reviews and low Rotten Tomatoes score. All the movies this year that have done better domestically had much better scores on Rotten Tomatoes. Most blockbusters that got a similar score as LOT on Rotten Tomatoes, really flopped domestically and made less than $80-100 million whereas LOT is already at $125 million.
So LOT did much better than expected and that's probably because audiences loved the movie, they gave it a high cinemascore of A- and therefore good word of mouth.
I loved the movie but feel the story doesn't need a sequel. I feel it would be unnecessary and not add anything, I know there were multiple books but for the movie itself I think it ended wonderfully.
1. BVS 2. Avengers 3. TWS
The movie ended with the birth of Tarzan/Jane's son. What better setup for a sequel? Wouldn't you like to know what becomes of this unique child?
We have not seen Korak, son of Tarzan, in a movie since 1920.
No I wouldn't adding children into any franchise is usually he kiss of death. Plus I am not one of those people who need "they lived happily ever after" spelled out for me. They could pull a Kylo Ren and have the child grow up to murder his parents. (Is a year enough to no longer be a spoiler).
1. BVS 2. TWS 3. Avenger
Agreed....this movie warrants a sequel...just based on their having a child.
Could definitely handle to see more of Alex in the role of Tarzan!!
Agreed!
This page will make you a smarter member --> http://www.imdb.com/help/boards/markup
Agreed, the sequel could relate to Tarzan, Jane and their child.
I would like a sequel to continue with Alex, Margot and the current cast. I thought they were the best part.
They planned three and contracted Alex for three from the beginning. However,doing even one sequel was always contingent on the reception of LOT. WB did not have an all out PR campaign for this movie. It was very basic, Unlike what you woukd expect for a movie that allegedly has the production budget the size of this one,. They didn't create a buzz for it, they didn't have trailers and posters everywhere etc. So, it has a mediocre box office result. It's doesn't look like they intend to go through with their original intentions at this point. Maybe if VOD and DVD sales are phenomenal they'll change their minds.
shareI'm glad to see that the movie has done much better than it was expected to and would love to see the story continue.
I personally think there is lot that remains unresolved. Like, for example, while of course a main attraction of the Tarzan story is its jungle setting, there remains the two halves of the character (especially in this imagining of him), the "wild" and the "human," that I'm not convinced have been fully reconciled. I think there's still room to explore that further.
One question that has bugged me since I saw the film is whether Tarzan is really just going to let his family's estate and heritage rot away in London while he frolics in the jungle? Is 'John Clayton III, Fifth Earl of Greystoke' going to be completely overcome by 'Tarzan, Lord of the Apes?'—should he be?
Anyway, I hope that if Fantastic Beasts is a resounding success for Warner Bros., Yates will put in a good word for a Tarzan sequel. I think he and WB owe the film that much, at least, seeing as how it got unfairly pushed to the back burner in favor of other projects.
IN the books Tarzan and Jsne buy a big estate in Africa. The title and properties of the English peerage were entailed and not passed on to the heir until the current Lord died So Tarzan keeps his Lord of Greystoke title and his estates in England? They won't moulder as estate managers were appointed to take care of and run these huge estates in their Lord's absence, even if it goes on for years. Book Tarzan ,over the course of the 26 or so books ,periodically visits Greystoke when he needs to go to England for political reason. Tarzan remains a sophisticated intelligent Lord and a savage primal apeman. His dual nature is the reason the Tarzan stories have captured people's imaginations down through the years, .
shareAh! Thanks, that's good to know. I just remembering finding it a little sad when the movie jumps ahead a year, and they show Greystoke Manor all empty and bleak, like it's just been completely forgotten about. It's understandable that Tarzan would love the jungle so much and feel loyalty to the mangani (and even the tribe Jane was raised around), but I wouldn't want him to totally abandon the Clayton side of himself, because that's part of who he is, too. Rather, I'd like to see Tarzan come to terms with both halves of himself and learn how to balance it all spades. But, with the way the movie ended, it feels like he's pretty much given up the "human/civilized" side of himself. It's good to know it's not like that in the books, at least.
That Tarzan and Jane bought an estate in Africa is interesting. And, actually, I remember getting the impression when I saw the movie that were intended to fix up her childhood home in the village and live there. Maybe that will be there Congo estate if there are sequels.
But, IMO there's issues with that because—and, this is something I've wondered about before—1)it seems unwise to me to have that big house smack dab in the middle of of a modest/poor Congolese village. I mean, it might attract the wrong kind of attention. Honestly, I wonder how Jane's family survived in it all those years. The villagers Jane was raised around are peaceful, sure. But, are their neighbors?...2)Are they really living in the jungle, like stereotypical Tarzan-style living. in. the. jungle if they have have a massive African estate? How exactly does that play out in the novels? To be honest, I'd almost prefer they live in the treehouse John's parents built, just to go all out with it.
In the movie ,the house Jane grew up in is not very large. It's basically a little better than a shack positioned at the end of the village. I doubt that the movie version, if a sequel is ever made,wil have Tarzan living on a vast estate as in the books. There is already too much criticism of the colonial era tainting Tarzan. If they have him living like a Lord in the Congo the critics will say he is no better than the other white overlords. Tarzan and Jane will ,no doubt ,continue to live in the house she grew up in. Although it doesn't seem likely we will be getting the planned sequel at this point,I would have loved for the story to continue. Tarzan won't be as tormented by his dual nature as he was in this movie and we would get to see a happier Tarzan ,although his dual nature would still be there to cause him to struggle with it at times, as he continues to try to reconcile it.
shareI think there are ways you could reconcile that Kenyan estate and Tarzan - seemingly - lording it over the tribe with modern sensibilities. If you can accept realpolitiks, that is.
That time was was it was, so considering that having a very rich and influential English peer as the "lord" over the tribe, especially in an area of an English colony - what if a smart tribal leader asked him to do that, as a facade? You could have them moving from the Belgian Congo because the pressure from the colonial forces gets too bad, and maybe the Mangani move with them too, to where Tarzan's heritage would allow him to set up that facade, and his heritage and money alone would make the English leave "his" tribe and their new land - ostensibly his "property" and his "servants" - in peace... while the actual deal is between equals, and a friend helping friends.
This really sounds like it could be an interesting take on things.
share1)it seems unwise to me to have that big house smack dab in the middle of of a modest/poor Congolese village. I mean, it might attract the wrong kind of attention.
347 milions.
shareOP, the film will still take a loss because it cost too much--remember the studio only gets 50% of box office, 40% of foreign box office, so that's 160 million back to the studio, BUT the marketing cost another $50 million at least--but $350 million is more than I thought it would gross also, nothing to be ashamed about at all
shareActually, I think the movie will end up being profitable because you also have to take into account DVD/BluRay sales which should be substantial and a lot of money to be made from TV and streaming once this film is out of theatres.
shareThey never really talk about how much money these movies actually make from home release and streaming rights, but i'm guessing that's where all the real money for the studios comes from. If you're lucky, the box office pays for the budget. But it's 20,30,40 years of home release that keeps the gravy flowing. Even the biggest box office flop is probably gonna bring you Sharknado money come xmas, which ain't nothing.
"I said no camels, that's five camels, can't you count?"
i wonder if the studio had pegged this to gross 500 million worldwide cause it appears it might fall just short of breaking even from it's box office, Though so much better then say 2 months ago when most predicted it being a huge utter flop
shareThe studio may have pegged it at the $500 mil level when they greenlit it,but at some point down the line,they changed their mind because they didn't give it anymore than a basic marketing package. They didn't hype it through it's productions I create a buzz. They didn't even start any type of marketing campaign until about a month before release and that one was very laksidasical and uninspired. That's why the tracking numbers were so low. It was word of mouth that raised it above those low expectations. The critics trashed it,mostly because of PC issues and the studio never defended it. They basically set it loose and allowed it to sink or swim on its own. If they had supported it,it would most likely exceeded the $ 500 mil level.
But WB is in turmoil and it started before their recent panic over their DCEU franchise, which only exacerbated their internal problems. Don't know what they are exactly, but it shows in the way they have handled most of their recent films from the biggest flops ala Pan and The Man from Uncle through near misses like LOT to the underperforming critically trashed Batman vs Superman and The Suicide Squad. They don't seem to know what they are doing. I hope they get themselves together soon and right their ship.
I think there is a real market for old fashioned romantic adventure films and if they don't ruin King Arthur or don't market it correctly, it will either flop or be a near miss,which will most likely mean no more attempts to do these kinds of films. I ,for one, really like these kinds of films. However,WB doesn't seem to have the capacity to look internally at their own poor choices and make the necessary changes,