white avenger
white avenger
Tarzan may be pretty well known, although nothing compared to 20 years ago and before but without marketing who are gonna rush to see the movie?
That 20 year gap might very well work as an advantage in this case. The majority of today's movie goers won't actually have all that vivid an image of what Tarzan should actually be. The name is familiar, everyone knows that he's the muscled up guy who swings around in the trees in Africa, but that's about it. There aren't going to be all that many people around to compare Skarsgard to Weissmuller. This movie doesn't have to "live up" to any of its predecessors.
The reaction to the trailers that I have seen at the movies seems pretty positive. It's got as good special effects as anything that I've seen lately, and, without actually saying it, Tarzan is being presented as exactly what he always actually was: a superhero. Tarzan was one of the very first superheros, literally. given the popularity of superhero movies today, I would say that that gives it at least a fair shot.
Now, let's compare LOT to another recent Burroughs offering, "John Carter." Called one of the biggest movie flops in history, it managed to pull in just over $300 million in ticket sales, quite impressive for a flop. If it had stayed within its $175 million budget, the "flop" would have probably had at least one sequel by now, with the third in production. LOT stayed within its $180 million budget, so if it only does as well as JC, it will still be profitable, and we may very well see Skarsgard pumping up for another swing through the trees in the next few years.