Unfinished but with bad test screenings and WB apparently thinking of pulling the film out of Summer '16 already? Sounds familiar...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/w ... ble-831921

Still tallying its staggering loss on Pan, Warner Bros. is said to be facing an unusual challenge on its next mega-budgeted fantasy reboot: Tarzan. With the film still needing considerable work before its July 1 release date, director David Yates has started shooting his next Warners project, J.K. Rowling's Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Warners sources say the move from Tarzan to Beasts always was planned. "While it's somewhat unusual, we are extremely comfortable with the production timelines, which were set in advance, and have total confidence in the skill of David Yates — who is a four-time Harry Potter director — to deliver both of these pictures," says a Warners executive (Yates declined to comment).

But one source involved with the project is concerned that Tarzan, with a budget of around $180 million and packed with visual effects, isn't getting the attention it needs. "The schedule of the J.K. Rowling movie got in the way of an appropriate postproduction schedule on Tarzan," says this person. "Why would you ever crowd a director into starting a movie before his other movie is properly finished?"

Sources say early test screenings of Tarzan, an adventure starring Alexander Skarsgard of HBO's True Blood as the vine-swinger and Margot Robbie as Jane, did not go well.

Trailer's out.

Does nothing to instill me with confidence! lol

Christophe Waltz? Samuel L. Jackson?

They should retitle it The Hateful Ape.

Lol...Samuel L. Jackson...

I was never a big fan of things relating to Tarzan; he looks like an un-costumed Spider-Man in this movie swinging around the trees, the apes are very reminiscent of the new POTA series, and the rest of it looks uninteresting.

To me, it's an interesting concept that hasn't really been done right for decades (and never done better than in the first two Weismuller films)

Once AGAIN with the clean-shaven Tarzan with zero body hair...

Actually as I recall, Burroughs did write an explanation for why Tarzan would be clean-shaven in his first book so we can forgive that point.

Second trailer doesn't make me feel better about this...lol

4/10

Oh, what happens when you just want to see something at the theater, and this is the least-offensive looking offering. Dull, dull, dull, with the same wan, washed-out photography and mediocre handling of the action elements that marred David Yates' Harry Potter outings. And the visual effects SUCK...it's like Warner Bros. saw the blood in the water during production, and just decided to cut their losses and not invest any more money into actually finalizing the CGI. Everything has this weightless, plasticine glossiness, and we're seen far more convincing computer-generated animals in the past decade in films like Life Of Pi and the current Planet Of The Apes pictures. It stuns me to learn that this cost $180 million, as I can't see where any of that money went in the final product. Were the writing more clever, were the performances more enthusiastic, and had the movie boasted a proper score (this one couldn't even afford Harry Gregson-Williams...they had to settle for Rupert. ), the cheapjack production values would have been more bearable, but as it stands, this is incredibly weak stuff, with only the luminous beauty of Margot Robbie really standing out. If I want to watch another movie with a man swinging through a CGI canopy, I'll stick with Disney's terrific Jungle Book from earlier this year, and if I want a decent Tarzan(c) movie (yes, the title actually has an on-screen copyright (c) symbol after it! ), I'll watch Greystoke (with a terrific John Scott score) or the 1999 Disney production.

Ouch, that's too bad. Doesn't it say everything about the Summer of '16 that THIS movie is the big studio surprise so far? Pretty much the only one that has defied analyst expectations.

AndyDursin wrote:Ouch, that's too bad. Doesn't it say everything about the Summer of '16 that THIS movie is the big studio surprise so far? Pretty much the only one that has defied analyst expectations.

That's pretty much the only reason I gave it a chance. Plus, critics pooped all over John Carter, and I ended up enjoying that a lot more than I thought, so I was hoping that lightning would strike twice.

The movie is also surprisingly unsexy, considering the erotic ominousness of the whole "man or beast?" mythology at play. Aside from a scene with Alexander Skarsgaard sniffing at Robbie's crotch(!), there's little heat generated by these two. Hell, even the Disney movie got this aspect right. You cast Robbie in a jungle picture, and can't even give us one gratuitous "wet cleavage" shot?

Or just once show her in an "after" costume? I admit, I'm sick and tired of seeing a Jane who spends the entire film still in the Victorian or safari outfits!