![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sinanjuSome clown did a drive-by post on alt.tv.angel advertizing the Tarzan series. I couldn't resist picking apart his ad. Read on, if you care to.
porter@nyc.com wrote:
> "This ain't your parent's Tarzan."
Strike one right there. If I'm gonna watch Tarzan, I want TARZAN, dammit. You know, loincloth clad ape-man marauding through the jungle, killing his enemies and being entirely too macho for his own good.
> If you aren't watching the WBs Tarzan, you're missing out on one of the
> best new shows of the season. I know what you're thinking, how good can
> a remake of Tarzan be. You're talking about a guy that runs around the
> jungle in a loin cloth, swinging from vines and yodeling. Oh and saving
> wimpy girly girl Jane from the wild beasts that raised him like one of
> their own.
Uh...that's what people _liked_ about Tarzan. That's why the books were popular. That's why the movies kept being made. That's what Tarzan _is_. If you're going to try to appeal to Tarzan fans, you might try giving them, you know, TARZAN. Not some warmed over night-time soap that bears little or no resemblance to the real thing.
> But it isn't your parent's Tarzan. First off, this Tarzan isn't in the
> jungles of Africa but rather the urban jungle of modern day New York
> City.
You are aware, aren't you, that Tarzan has been to the big city before, right?
> And there's no loin cloth (but for those that like some nice eye
> candy he does go shirtless a few times). And yes he has a knack from
> climbing trees and such but there's no yodeling and no little monkey
> buddy named Cheetah. There's also no monosyllabic vocabulary. Nor is
> there a wimpy and swooning Jane constantly in need of saving.
Nor was there in the original Tarzan. Tarzan was quite well-spoken.
> And there's Richard and Kathleen Clayton, the estranged siblings who are
> fighting tooth and nail for the share of controlling stocks in the
> family owned Greystoke Industries that their brother John Clayton Sr
> left behind when he died. These shares (and additional money equaling
> several billion dollars) have been held in trust since the crash.
> Richard wants the trust to gain control of Greystoke, Kathleen wants to
> give it away to charity as a tribute to her lost family members.
Yawn. A soap opera.
> Unlike Tarzan's of the past, this show is hip and smart.
"Hip and smart" invariably means "mocking the source material" in my experience. Strike two.
> It's more than
> just a Romeo and Juliet romance, more than a cop show, more than a
> conspiracy story, more than a drama. It's all this at it's best.
Trying to be all things to all people means failing at all them.
> And the
> cast is truly amazing. Who would have thought that an underwear model
> could possess the skills to convey in a look what most people would take
> a small soliquy to express. Or could express so much in only a few
> words. (as one reviewer said "The guy that played Tarzan didn't really
> have much to say but even after a few grunts he showed more acting
> acumen then the entirety of Tom Welling's two season run.")
Strike three. Dissing the competition, even by proxy. I'm no Tom Welling fan, but he's no less acceptable than countless other tv leads. And at least Smallville gives me what I want (and expect) from a show about the guy who will eventually be Superman. Feats of super strength, speed and toughness, supervillains, action, secret identity angst, and so forth.
> Lucy Lawless as the Clayton siblings
Oh yeah. Lucy Lawless is in this thing. Well, that might have tempted me to watch, if I'd remembered. But too late now.
RIP Tarzan.
porter@nyc.com wrote:
> "This ain't your parent's Tarzan."
Strike one right there. If I'm gonna watch Tarzan, I want TARZAN, dammit. You know, loincloth clad ape-man marauding through the jungle, killing his enemies and being entirely too macho for his own good.
> If you aren't watching the WBs Tarzan, you're missing out on one of the
> best new shows of the season. I know what you're thinking, how good can
> a remake of Tarzan be. You're talking about a guy that runs around the
> jungle in a loin cloth, swinging from vines and yodeling. Oh and saving
> wimpy girly girl Jane from the wild beasts that raised him like one of
> their own.
Uh...that's what people _liked_ about Tarzan. That's why the books were popular. That's why the movies kept being made. That's what Tarzan _is_. If you're going to try to appeal to Tarzan fans, you might try giving them, you know, TARZAN. Not some warmed over night-time soap that bears little or no resemblance to the real thing.
> But it isn't your parent's Tarzan. First off, this Tarzan isn't in the
> jungles of Africa but rather the urban jungle of modern day New York
> City.
You are aware, aren't you, that Tarzan has been to the big city before, right?
> And there's no loin cloth (but for those that like some nice eye
> candy he does go shirtless a few times). And yes he has a knack from
> climbing trees and such but there's no yodeling and no little monkey
> buddy named Cheetah. There's also no monosyllabic vocabulary. Nor is
> there a wimpy and swooning Jane constantly in need of saving.
Nor was there in the original Tarzan. Tarzan was quite well-spoken.
> And there's Richard and Kathleen Clayton, the estranged siblings who are
> fighting tooth and nail for the share of controlling stocks in the
> family owned Greystoke Industries that their brother John Clayton Sr
> left behind when he died. These shares (and additional money equaling
> several billion dollars) have been held in trust since the crash.
> Richard wants the trust to gain control of Greystoke, Kathleen wants to
> give it away to charity as a tribute to her lost family members.
Yawn. A soap opera.
> Unlike Tarzan's of the past, this show is hip and smart.
"Hip and smart" invariably means "mocking the source material" in my experience. Strike two.
> It's more than
> just a Romeo and Juliet romance, more than a cop show, more than a
> conspiracy story, more than a drama. It's all this at it's best.
Trying to be all things to all people means failing at all them.
> And the
> cast is truly amazing. Who would have thought that an underwear model
> could possess the skills to convey in a look what most people would take
> a small soliquy to express. Or could express so much in only a few
> words. (as one reviewer said "The guy that played Tarzan didn't really
> have much to say but even after a few grunts he showed more acting
> acumen then the entirety of Tom Welling's two season run.")
Strike three. Dissing the competition, even by proxy. I'm no Tom Welling fan, but he's no less acceptable than countless other tv leads. And at least Smallville gives me what I want (and expect) from a show about the guy who will eventually be Superman. Feats of super strength, speed and toughness, supervillains, action, secret identity angst, and so forth.
> Lucy Lawless as the Clayton siblings
Oh yeah. Lucy Lawless is in this thing. Well, that might have tempted me to watch, if I'd remembered. But too late now.
RIP Tarzan.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-24 04:08 pm (UTC)File it with the teenage-Butch-and-Sundance and teenage-Lone-Ranger shows that they've tried to shove down our throats since the success of "Smallville." I will probably never, ever see so much as a minute of this show. Then, one day, the star will show up in something else and, when I fail to recognize him, somebody'll tell me, Hey! He used to be Tarzan!
Ah, I'll reply. Hmm.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-25 03:53 pm (UTC)