This story is pretty inside-Hollywood and “how the sausage is made,” but trust me when I say that all of this affects some people that you actually care about at a gossip level, like Alexander Skarsgard and Ben Affleck. First off, Pan flopped HARD at the box office. Like it was a $150 million belly flop. Warner Brothers produced Pan and God knows why they sank so much money into it, but they did and now they’ve spent another $150-180 million on a film that might end up bringing in $20-30 million in domestic and international box office, if that. The Pan flop is coming off a particularly bad time because Warner Bros also produced Jupiter Ascending, which lost more than $100 million for the studio and The Man From UNCLE, which flopped but will probably not be as big of a loss (and I actually saw the film and it wasn’t terrible).
So what’s the next big flop for Warner Bros? Tarzan. Tarzan has already been shot – starring Alexander Skarsgard as Tarzan and Margot Robbie as Jane – and it’s set for a July 2016 release. Only the film is a mess.
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. But studio sources say the film is not finished and it’s routine for movies to be revised and improved. And a Warners insider notes that both Steven Spielberg and Clint Eastwood have gone into preproduction on projects before their previous film is finished, though none has been as expensive, complicated or challenged as Tarzan appears to be.
Yates began shooting Beasts, starring Eddie Redmayne and a large ensemble cast, in August, and a studio source says he is focused on that film during the week while reviewing edits of Tarzan on weekends. Sources say if that process proves too cumbersome to get the movie ready in time, Warners could push the film off its summer release date. Warners has Guy Ritchie’s Knights of the Roundtable: King Arthur on July 22 and the DC Comics team-up Suicide Squad on Aug. 5, so its schedule is crowded, and the studio has bumped a July release each of the past two summers, Jupiter Ascending and Pan.
One insider notes that Tarzan also has suffered the loss of producer Jerry Weintraub, who died unexpectedly July 6: “If there was a strong independent producer on the movie, this could have been managed better.” And a high-level executive at another studio expresses doubt about the viability of the Tarzan property and casting a relative unknown, Skarsgard, as the lead, saying, “You shouldn’t make that movie without an actor you’re dying to see in the part.”
Wall Street analyst Harold Vogel says he wouldn’t judge any film before its release but has concerns about the Warners slate in general. “The whole strategy over the last two years has been to emulate Disney and Marvel,” he says. “It shows a possible exhaustion of ideas.” He points to the studio’s attempt to invigorate DC, which begins in earnest with Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (March 25), as well as making such fantasy fare as Pan, Tarzan, King Arthur and a live-action Jungle Book set for 2017, more than a year after Disney’s Jon Favreau-directed version of the Rudyard Kipling novel opens.
I just don’t see why any studio would sink more than $100 million into a Tarzan movie, even if it starred someone like Chris Hemsworth. But to put that kind of money into a film starring Skarsgard is absurd (and I’m a fan!). It seems like Warner Bros doesn’t know what the hell they’re doing these days. I actually wonder if Suicide Squad and Batman vs. Superman are going to be the beginning of the end for these comic book movies – so much money has gone into them and the financial model doesn’t even make sense at this point. Like, if the superhero film doesn’t make $500 million or more, it’s a flop. It’s not sustainable.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
He is NOT movie star material. Whoever cast him is nuts.
Agree. I love the Skars but he is better left to an ensemble cast much like in True Blood. He’s not as dynamic on screen as his dad and I can’t see him carrying a movie
that being said, he is beautiful. I would watch Tarzan on Netflix, but thats about it.
I can’t say whether he’s a movie star material or not but isn’t he too old to play Tarzan? Asakr turns 40 next year. Even if the movie is set like 10 years after Tarzan’s return to the civilization, he’s way too old. Aren’t Tarzan and Jane supposed to be about same age?
How much you wanna bet that 25 year old Margo Robbie is playing 35 in the movie?
Aww, I love him. I think he is gorgeous. But, I guess your comment has more to do with his acting talent then his appearance.
Wonder what he was doing at the Metropolitan Opera? Movie premiere?
He’s a prawn (keep the body, lose the head).
Thank you for bringing that term into my life!
YES!!!!!!! Oh my gosh, perfect. All these people calling him gorgeous… I think he has oodles of sex appeal but I don’t think he’s handsome in the classical, symmetrical sense of the word. But maybe that makes him more desirable in a way?
Hahahahaha brilliant.
No way …….he’s gorgeous looking. He looks very Swedish, like a Viking , also classy. I like that he doesn’t look like all the rest of the bland Hollywood hunk types. I have to say also I don’t think he looks his age compared to other actors. Bradley Coopers kind of ok and Brad Pitt is looking a bit rough now.
I love Alex, but 100 Million is an ungodly amount of money.
Not only don’t I understand why you’d sink that much money into a Tarzan movie, I don’t understand why anyone would make a Tarzan movie in 2015. A racially problematic property that no one is clamoring to hear more about starring someone who’s not a Movie Star. I mean, why? Just because Marvel can occasionally pluck a guy from TV and cast him in a weird (but non-racist) story that includes a talking raccoon doesn’t mean every company can do that. Marvel has its own brand appeal in a way that Warner Brothers doesn’t, and I think even that is going to be tempered with time.
It’s been many years since I was a kid, so I don’t remember; what was the racist angle with Tarzan?
Okay, I googled Burroughs. Never mind. Awful attitudes, even for his time.
Yup, awful attitudes. But even a modern, cleaned up version will be hard to do without it being troublesome. I mean, it’s literally a story about a blond, white dude doing heroic things in Africa. Either he ends up being the white savior of black people, or he mostly rescues white people and it ends up being a movie set in Africa that erases black people entirely. I feel like that’s the sort of thing that used to fly if nothing overtly offensive was included but that will get called out now, especially if the movie is otherwise mediocre.
@lunchcoma: Wait, so if I’m blonde and white I can’t help people in Africa? Is that racist now, too? Got it. So no more money to African charities. Thanks.
I think like Cumberbatch the powers that be took Skarsgard’s tumblr following/social media fanbase to equal that he is more famous and well known then he actually is. So they figured he was a pretty good gamble to invest in.
I think he’s got a case of what Lainey calls Leading Man Syndrome. He’s handsome as hell and he has an avid internet following, but he’s more suited to secondary roles than to being the lead in big action pictures. I think he would have been wise to try to take his career in a different direction, rather than signing onto Battleship and then to this.
“I think he would have been wise to try to take his career in a different direction, rather than signing onto Battleship and then to this.”
I actually think Tarzan is more a fluke than a career path. He did a bunch of smaller films between Battleship and I get the impression he prefers those to the big blockbusters.
Alex has basically not been in a great movie. Even the indie roles he’s taken have been in movies that tanked. There was that one year where he was in something like 4 or 5 movies and they all tanked. Big budget or small budget, he doesn’t seem to choose projects that work.
I’d like to see him in a western or a romantic role .He’ tall and rangy with quite a southern drawl in his voice. His films choices leave me mystified. He show cased his acting talents in True Blood why not in movie roles. Most of the actors in Hollywod all look the same apart from Ryan Gosling who vaguely looks like Alex.
I’ll be happy to console him after it flops.
I like Alex and believe he is a good actor. I think he’s one of those people who look “meh” in still photography, but when you see him on screen, he is HOT.
Agreed. His face makes me turn away in pictures, but onscreen he’s one of those Better In Motion actors. Wonderful to watch. And a decent actor, better than a lot who are more popular and make more money.
Agree on both counts.
I agree. I love him but he is a curious case. He’s super tall and blond and very charismatic on screen, he can charm you out of your pants in a second. But to me that doesn’t make him leading man material. I think he’s a weird mix of hot but classic supporting actor. He’s great in an ensemble and can pull off quirky parts but people probably look at him and mistake him for a leading man? I guess? His choices have been crazy as well. On an artistic indie level he’s been spot-on if not commercially successful but any time he tries to go commercial or blockbuster, he fizzles. He’s said many times that he doesn’t have a strategy for his career and I’m starting to believe him. Which is not good.
I’ll see that movie for sure but at this point, I’m going as much for Margot Robbie as I’m going for him.
Wasn’t the only “blockbuster” film he chose Battleship? And in a very secondary role? I kind of assumed he did that to get some experience on that sort of a film set, sort of sticking his toe in the water so to speak, before becoming involved in another where his role was much more important.
I personally think he IS leading man material and a very good actor. He does nuances well and the sort of charisma he’s capable of projecting onscreen is rather impressive. Let’s face it, they probably just hired him for his abs, but regardless of how the film turns out I’d be willing to bet he manages to give the character dimensions that the script probably didn’t.
Battleship got really bad reviews, and Alex died less than half way through.
I hope their take on Tarzan is an amusing and lighthearted one, I can see that working. AS is a good choice if that’s the case. It’s a matter of opinion, but to me, these cgi-heavy adventure/action movies tend to run on momentum, so casting a non-superstar actor is fine as long as they can act. Christopher Reeve fell into that category for me, adequate, not memorable leading man material.
He lacks that wink-wink quality required to pull off light hearted comic films. He is passable in one or two intense creeper roles but he couldn’t pull off a serious take of Tarzan either. He is just not a leading man. No wonder the test audience were so vicious. Bad casting.
@Naya They’re all beating dead horses, far as I’m concerned: Tarzan, Lone Ranger, Peter Pan, comic books heroes, hobbits. All of it feels the same to me, like heavily processed, taste-free, cheese food.
I just don’t get why Tarzan. Like others have pointed out, it’s firstly sort of racially problematic. Secondly, it’s been done to death, along with it’s humorous incarnations – you have multiple Tarzan films and then dozens of stories based off the same idea – feral child raised by animals. Why do it again?
I think part of why these movies bomb is because people will eventually get tired of the same story over and over again. How many times has the Peter Pan story been told on film? A bunch. We don’t need another Peter Pan movie. And we don’t need another Tarzan.
I watched Pan. The only saving moment is when Captain Blackbeard appeared & sang along to Nirvana’s smells like teen spirit.
On Tarzan, whoever approved it deserve their 100 millions loss~
Whuuuuuuuuuuuut?
Yeah this sounds like a huge mess. I hope Alex’s and Margot’s careers don’t suffer because of this. I like them, and it’d be so unfair to blame the flop on them.
I think Margot will be fine. She was a stand out in Wolf of Wall Street and Focus did pretty good, so she’s has shown she can preform in movies. Alex on the other hand still has to prove he is a draw in bigger budget, non-indies movies.
Margot also comes across as a smart, serious young woman who does good work and then doesn’t stick around to play the Hollywood game — unlike most of her peers. She doesn’t seem to care about being famous, and I think that goes a long way for her with the right people, especially being young.
As for Skars, I think they mistakenly hired him for his sexuality. He talks about nudity and being nude all the time, and he has a track record for being able to turn up the heat if the director wants it. Maybe the people who made this movie misjudged the female audiences want/interest in a sexually dynamic Tarzan and Skars was going to be it. Skars for the ladies and Margot for the guys. I bet this type of shallow thinking was what the studio was gunning for.
Just a theory.
Hollywood is so desperate for franchises that they’re trying to “force it” with middling properties like The Lone Ranger, Peter Pan, Tarzan, and so on. But people don’t want to see these movies, no matter how much they cost.
At least Disney has the right idea trying to revive the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises. Audiences actually give a damn about those properties. Tarzan? No one gives a crap.
I think the fact that they cost so much is actually one of the reasons people are antagonistic towards these movies. They are not only reboots/remakes of things that no one gives a damn about anymore, but they also cost a s**tton of money that could be invested in several smaller (and probably more interesting) projects, or in one big movie but that people want to watch. The fact that lots of people have also problems with jobs and cash also makes them realize how big of an insanity is to pay that much for a movie no one asked about.
No one complained when The Avengers’ s budget was of 210 millions of dollars because everyone was hyped (I think it’ s too much, but at least that movie delivered what it promised). But these? Not so much.
Serious question: don’ t producers of big companies like Disney and Warner Bros make polls about these things? I mean, I think I would if I were in their place.
All the failure of Suicide Squad and Batman vs Superman will do is ruin DC’s chance of creating a cohesive movie universe the way Marvel has. It won’t affect Marvel’s movies because they have done a great job of making people care about their heros and connecting their movies into one sensible world.
As for Tarzan, who wanted that? Plus Skarsgard is not charismatic enough to pull off being a lead in such a big budget movie. Warner must have had a bunch of money to throw at the wind because there is nothing that Alex has done to prove he is big enough to front such a movie, especially a movie that unlike Chris Pratt with Jurassic and Guardians , doesn’t have a built in fanbase.
Seriously, George of the jungle was fine and plenty enough. (and was actually funny! at least the first one). No need for a Tarzan movie, the disney 2d version was great though! phil collins beautiful soundtrack too.
” Like, if the superhero film doesn’t make $500 million or more, it’s a flop. It’s not sustainable.”
And not even then! Man of Steel made over $600M and Warner Bros lost money on it, because they spent too much making it. The only reason some Marvel movies have been deemed successful, like Ant Man and Thor 2, is because of the relatively low cost of making them. We’re almost to a point where these movies have to make a *billion* dollars to be successful. (Amazing Spiderman 2 made over $700M and it also was a loss, because Sony spent too much on it.)
Yes, the answer is Yes…. Also are his eyebrows on Back order at the Brows Store?
Even if it was budgeted at 20 million it still would flop because who f**king cares about Tarzan. And he most definitely has a case of struggle brows right now.
For the sake of the cast (which also includes Samuel L Jackson and Christoph Waltz, I think) I hope it does OK, but with bloated budgets like that, it’s nearly impossible to turn a big profit unless the words “The Avengers” are in the title.
I think Alex is an interesting actor, I’ve liked him a lot in the smaller films he’s done. I have a feeling if this flops, he’ll stick to those types of films, which he’s probably better suited to.
I really look forward to the Tarzanfilm. Why does everyone think the film will be
like the previous films?
This is a new version according to the interviews with some of the filmcast.
I´m so done with all the boring superhero films with boring superheros in.
I like to see adventure, romance, thriller and amazing scenery if I decide to
see a film at a big screen. Indiefilms I can watch at home.
As a woman I also like to see a sexy man in the lead. 🙂
and Alex Skarsgard is very sexy and charismatic, he will be a great Tarzan.
I remember him from True Blood. All actors are unknown before they get
cast in a filmrole that becomes a success for them, got to start somewhere…..
It would have helped them had they cast someone good-looking as protagonist.
Skarsgard looks like he needs some claritin.
No he’s to be in all his 6ft 4inch glory at my local cinema.
I don’t even understand why this film was made in the first place. Greystoke was a notorious turkey, despite starring a gorgeous manhunk who looks a lot like Askars.
I loved The Man From UNCLE, it’s a shame it didn’t make more money because they’ll never make a sequel. :s
I’m not even sorry for Pan, it looks ridiculous.
Now, Tarzan… yeah, I’m afraid it’s doomed. Also, Margot Robbie is playing Jane, really? whyyy
Still not as bad as $350M spent on the flop that was JOHN CARTER.
Wow I like Alex skarsgard, he is ok in small independent limited release films which he got good reviews for which included diary of a teenage girl and what Maisie new that show cased his talent he is better as a supporting actor or an assemble cast, I am not convinced he is leading role material I just don’t think HW know how to cast him.
his dad stellan is leading quality, very talented, can play a variety of characters with Interesting projects Alex needs a few a more years before he levels with his dad and to get himself some Interesting projects instead of hanging on to some fashionista famewhore chain smoker
anybody seen stellan in the UK BBC detective drama river?
Yep he!s brilliant in it. I would give 5 stars, can’t wait for the next episode. I think Alex will surprise everybody . He’s got charisma like his dad ,he can act and that body …….it’s much better than Chris Hemsworth’s. David Yates is not daft he will be great in it. I keep remembering some of his scenes from True Blood , he sizzled on screen. His indie films I am at odds with them and his strange movie role choices. He said he turned down Lincoln Lawyer part….. why … I would have loved him in that.
He’s so bland. I’m very curious to see the trailers and how they’ve rebooted this. Margot is a good actor but the story’s so anachronistic.
It’s based on a book set in the past it’s not meant to be totally PC. They are hardly going whip their mobiles and I Pads . I am more than sure it will set in its historic context. All people want is to be entertained so I think there will be plenty of action. I think any racist overtones will be dealt with because we are more enlightened now with fall of appartheid which was just horrible. Thinking it’s going to be more about brutal suppression by the baddie. However with the killing going onto today in Africa and Middle East perhaps it might be more relevant than you think. Pity Tarzan can’t join forces with James Bond to put a stop to it all. That would be anachronistic ?
I think Alex is going to surprise everyone. What’s not to love about him.He’s sexy, gorgeous and he can act. I don’t understand the dolling around with his previous movies though I always watch them cause he’s in them. I watched his dad in River he was fantastic and for 64 year old man rather hot. I think he’s def passed his gene pool on to his son. Roll on Tarzan because I will be at the cinema watching it.
I’m a huge Alex fan. If the movie flops it won’t be his fault, he is a good actor, he’s stunning on screen, it would be because Warner Bros. and other major movie studios insists on creating these massive hyped up re-vamps and re-makes of characters and stories that are so incredibly tired. Tarzan, really? What’s next, a remake of Gremlins? Oh, wait Warner Bros. is really doing that. Gag me with a spoon.