In a recent interview with The Hollywood Reporter, The Amazing Spider-Man star Andrew Garfield talked about trying to make the movies appeal to a younger audience.
“I had to fight really, really hard to make sure that the character was honored and that we were offering something really fun, entertaining and also moving and complex and deep for all the young boys and girls that want to see their favourite superhero.”
The actor then goes on to discuss his dissatisfaction with how the movies turned out.
“So many beautiful things came out of that [working on ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’] I met someone that remains incredibly important to my life on that — you can fill in the blanks on who that is. But the difference between how I felt when Never Let Me Go and The Social Network were coming out and how I felt with The Amazing Spider-Man franchise was that I didn’t feel represented. I was feeling very represented by those other two films, and with The Amazing Spider-Man stuff I didn’t feel like that was my work up there, in a weird way. It felt like a semblance of it or kind of a shade of it, but ultimately I felt it was enshrouded in that filter.”
Many fans would agree with him. Although I personally liked the franchise they were building, there’s no doubt that Sony chopped up and edited the movie to their liking.
What are your thoughts on his comments? Did you enjoy his portrayal of Peter Parker? Let us know in the comments.
Source: THR via Heroic Hollywood.
The accepted definition of pulp fiction is fantastic, escapist fiction marketed at a large audience. Pulp-style movies are being made today, and some are big hits. Guardians of the Galaxy, The Magnificent Seven and Jupiter Ascending are all pulp and have all been been financially successful. Although not categorized as pulp fiction Several long running television series have used similar themes to those used by Burroughs. Stargate SGI and Vikings are both about heroes adventuring in strange lands where they fight the natives for survival. Given precedents, the audience for a faithful Burrough’s adaptation is there.
So where, specifically ,did The Legend of Tarzan go wrong? What were its major problems? First, aside from Tarzan and Jane, the major characters were historical figures.Pulp characters have to be larger than life, especially the hero and villain. Writing historical figures as larger than life risks turning them into caricatures. Second, A lot of ideas that could have been developed into good pulp were touched on and forgotten. Tarzan says that living like an ape has changed his physiology, but there’s no follow up. There are multiple scenes of the Mangani apes fighting, but Tarzan himself doesn’t fight like that. Clearly Tarzan and Jane have had adventures amongst the local peoples, but we never hear about them. All of these concepts had potential but went nowhere. The last and biggest problem: We never see Opar, the highly advanced lost civilization featured prominently in Burrough’s novels. We know there is an Opar since Djimon Hounsou’s character is described as one of the leopard men of Opar, but we have no Opar.
