News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Tarzan at Theaters Friday

Started by SGOS, June 28, 2016, 08:56:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

drunkenshoe

Quote from: SGOS on June 28, 2016, 12:48:51 PM
There were no actual names involved.  There was A Jane, but not THE Jane, and her character could change from time to time.  I don't think I wanted to call her Jane, because even at that young age, the classic dialog consisting of "Me Tarzan.  You Jane," seemed outrageously silly.  Come to think of it, I wasn't Tarzan in my ruminations either.  I was just a guy who lived in the jungle, talked to animals, did everything right, and was linked with my environment in fascinating ways.

This is unbelievably cute.

"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

SGOS



stromboli

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 29, 2016, 11:40:09 AM
They were off about him and Jane never being married. They didn't read the second book.

I've never understood why Tarzan wore a breech cloth.

or how somebody raised by apes could learn to tan hides to make said breechcloth.

SGOS

7/10

It was a good movie,  It didn't start at the chronological beginning, but referred back to his primitive life via flashbacks.  This could have been titled Lord of Greystoke, rather than Tarzan, since it begins with his life in England, followed by a visit to the Congo, where he meets up with old friends and new enemies.  Animal special effects were pretty good.

drunkenshoe

Sounds old school. Glad to hear it.
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Gawdzilla Sama

I've always thought Burrows was a hack writer. His Barsoom novels are pure boiler plate.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

stromboli

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 01, 2016, 01:17:00 PM
I've always thought Burrows was a hack writer. His Barsoom novels are pure boiler plate.

Can you say formulaic? Burroughs figured out how to do formula stories. That is how you crank out 50 novels. Robert Howard to a degree did the same with Conan and Kull the conqueror. Formula writing means you have a standard set of how the characters are portrayed, how the plot runs, where the plot breaks fall, how the story is concluded. Read 3 or 4 of Alistair Maclean novels. Maclean cranked out 40 novels. But the winnah in my book is Clive Cussler. 60 some novels. You want to see how formula works, The Guns of Navarone, Ice Station Zebra and Where Eagles Dare by Maclean have almost the same number of pages, the same plot twists and the same set of good guys/bad guys in every story.

Cussler does the same thing with Dirk Pitt and other protagonists. There is always some little known antique car involved in a chase scene, the female interest is always a willowy blonde goddess who happens to have an IQ of 250 and six college degrees. Reality based, imo. And the books are all of a similar size with similar hero profiles, a sidekick and a love interest. That is how you make the big bucks as a novelist.

Gawdzilla Sama

I figure that out when I was 13.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

SGOS

Rotten Tomatoes doesn't like Tarzan (34%).  I think it deserves more, although it could have been better.

stromboli

Quote from: SGOS on July 01, 2016, 08:35:49 PM
Rotten Tomatoes doesn't like Tarzan (34%).  I think it deserves more, although it could have been better.

[spoiler]This is the only Tarzan movie worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bc7KDyLV80
[/spoiler]

SGOS


drunkenshoe

Quote from: SGOS on July 01, 2016, 08:35:49 PM
Rotten Tomatoes doesn't like Tarzan (34%).  I think it deserves more, although it could have been better.

Probably, they just booed it just because it was made a lot of times without any 'improvements'. But also rotten tomatoes...myeh.
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Munch

Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2016, 02:56:49 AM
Probably, they just booed it just because it was made a lot of times without any 'improvements'. But also rotten tomatoes...myeh.

That site gave 'it follows' a high rating, when I just found the movie boring and pretentious, and gave warcraft a flop rating, where most people who go to see it enjoyed it. I gave up with sites like that.
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

Mike Cl

Quote from: stromboli on July 01, 2016, 03:17:52 PM
Can you say formulaic? Burroughs figured out how to do formula stories. That is how you crank out 50 novels. Robert Howard to a degree did the same with Conan and Kull the conqueror. Formula writing means you have a standard set of how the characters are portrayed, how the plot runs, where the plot breaks fall, how the story is concluded. Read 3 or 4 of Alistair Maclean novels. Maclean cranked out 40 novels. But the winnah in my book is Clive Cussler. 60 some novels. You want to see how formula works, The Guns of Navarone, Ice Station Zebra and Where Eagles Dare by Maclean have almost the same number of pages, the same plot twists and the same set of good guys/bad guys in every story.

Cussler does the same thing with Dirk Pitt and other protagonists. There is always some little known antique car involved in a chase scene, the female interest is always a willowy blonde goddess who happens to have an IQ of 250 and six college degrees. Reality based, imo. And the books are all of a similar size with similar hero profiles, a sidekick and a love interest. That is how you make the big bucks as a novelist.
I liked the formula that Burroughs had developed when I stumbled across the John Carter of Mars series--I was in early HS and it struck a cord.  So, I read them all.  I also was introduced to Luis L'Amour at about the same time.  I think he wrote something like 89 novels, but they were all western.  I only read two of those, and then returned to SF. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?