Talk:Tarzan (1999 film)/Archive 1

Mid 1860s
Is there any source for this date for the film? Every indication seems to be the film takes place later. Clothing in the film, technology like the typewriter, the penny-farthing bicycle, the microscope. The TV series takes place directly after the film and is clearly set in the 1910s with a post-presidency Roosevelt, airplanes, etc. If Tarzan is in his 20s then 1880s would seem the earliest his parents would have shipwrecked, and the film set around the 1890s or 1900s. 73.192.233.85 (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Terk's Gender
I thought Terk was male, forgive me if I'm wrong.Rebeccarulz123 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC) It is an understandable mistake.I thought so too.But her voice actress is Rosie O'Donnel, so she must be female (though I know that isn't always the case). 152.31.229.30 18:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

She's female, all the other apes refer to her as a female and her name is short for Terkina which sounds like a girl's name. 66.167.204.3 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

David Zippel
Did David Zippel reallyw rite the lyrics for Tarzan? No where in my research can I find any source to verify this. Collins expanded the score for Broadway. Zippel was never credited for any of the lyrics, both existing or written for the show.

??? I Just Kissed Al Pacino  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.213.77 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Terk
Terk has been tagged for merge to this article. Terk is an unnotable fictional character lacking significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. The same applies to Kala (Tarzan) and Kerchak, which have also been tagged. Therefore merging to this article seems the most appropriate target for each, as the other two only marginally reference the original works. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * They should be merged. Can we please place a moratorium on separate articles about secondary characters from films and keep any information about them in the main article about the film itself? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The merge proposal is arguable, in the instance of Terk, though I am against it. Terk as a character was invented for the Disney Tarzan film, though she had antecedents in previous incarnations of the Tarzan saga, as is noted in the presently existing article regarding her (information that ought not to be lost from wikipedia). She is not, however, a minor character, but a major one in both the film and most of its spin-offs. Therefore, I would argue, she merits her own article, just as Cheeta, her main movie precursor, does.


 * I am glad this discussion has been opened. Previously I noted that this and other articles on Tarzan characters had been changed to redirects without discussion, which was plainly wrong, and which I therefore reverted for that reason. Discussing the issue and arriving at a consensus before acting is the proper route to take.


 * The proposals in regard to Kala and Kerchak are really separate issues, for which I have therefore created separate headings for, below. BPK (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: the character only appears in this film and related media, but the article covers nothing more than in-universe appearances. There is no coverage by reliable secondary sources nor impact in popular culture. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I proceeded with the merge of this character given it was a 3 vs 1 result. Furthermore, the article did not show any improvement by adding real-world content proving Notability outside Disney's Tarzan. Cheeta being her movie precursor means nothing to this discussion. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  04:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Kala
This is properly a separate topic from "Merge of Terk" above, and I am separating out the discussion accordingly. For the record, AnmaFinotera and LiteraryMaven are already on record as in favor of the merge, per the first two commends under "Merge of Terk."

I am against this merge proposal for two reasons.

First, if the Kala article should be merged into a more inclusive one, this is not the article to move it into. Kala as a character predates Disney's Tarzan movie by over eighty years! She plays a pivotal role in the original Tarzan novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, a role acknowledged by continual references to her in later Tarzan books, films, radio programs, comics, etc. The main Tarzan article would be a more appropriate merge-to article. Only material relating specifically to the character as portrayed in the Disney Tarzan film should be considered for merging to this one.

Second, as should be obvious from the preceding paragraph, Kala is not really a secondary character in the Tarzan saga, but a primary one, and as such, in my opinion, merits her own article. BPK (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Being a primary character does not make her notable by Wikipedia standards. Is there significant coverage of the character in reliable, third-party sources, that discuss her creation/conception, reception, and oter character analysis? If not, then she is not notable. I suggested merging here primarily because her article currently is almost entirely about the film character. I would not, however, object to her being merged to Tarzan instead. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: I agree that the character is not notable; however, I suggest merge into Tarzan or a list of characters because the character appeared in media before Disney. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Kerchak
This too, is properly a separate topic from "Merge of Terk" above, and I am separating out the discussion accordingly. Again, for the record, AnmaFinotera and LiteraryMaven are already on record as in favor of the merge, per the first two commends under "Merge of Terk."

I am against this merge proposal for the same two reasons as I provided under "Merge of Kala," above.

First, this again would not be the proper article to move Kerchak into. Kerchak, like Kala, predates Disney's Tarzan movie by over eighty years, and the main Tarzan article would be a the appropriate merge-to article, if any. Only material relating specifically to the character as portrayed in the Disney Tarzan film should be considered for merging to this one.

Second, again, Kerchak plays a pivotal role in the original Tarzan novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, a role acknowledged by continual references to him in later Tarzan books, films, radio programs, comics, etc. He is not really a secondary character in the Tarzan saga, but a primary one, and as such, in my opinion, merits his own article. BPK (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As with Kala, being a "pivotal" character does not make the character notable by Wikipedia standards. Character articles are not determined by whether a character is a primary or secondary one in a work, but whether the character is notable. Is there significant coverage of Kerchak, the character, in reliable, third-party sources, that discuss again his creation/conception, reception, and other character analysis? If not, then he is not notable by Wikipedia standards. As with Kala, I made this the suggested merge target because of the current focus of his article, but again, I would not object to his instead being merged to Tarzan. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: same as Kala. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Clayton
He is a film only character who also suffers from the same lack of significant coverage that the other characters. With his being exclusive to the film, targeting here should be fine. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: Clayton appears only in the film and related media (such as Kingdom Hearts), but lacks coverage by reliable secondary sources and impact in popular culture. The article is basically plot appearances, that are already covered in the film article (and his alternative fate can be placed in the production section). There is no content lost at all with this merge. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I proceeded with the merge of this article because opposition did not come after a week and because there was not any improvement of the article at all to prove the subject's notability outside Disney's Tarzan and related media. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  04:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Burroughs books, John Clayton was Tarzan's own, original name. Disney plays footloose with the original story again. 198.53.140.2 (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

producer credit wrong
Producer: Bonnie Arnold ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobnoni (talk • contribs) 08:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Chris Buck is listed as the Producer and this is not true. Bonnie Arnold was the producer on this film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120855/fullcredits

Jimithing1 (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks! Avic enna sis @ 07:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.135.31.6, 3 May 2010
editsemiprotected

Please change the "brake" in this sentence "They brake Tarzan, and the others, free, and they race back to the gorilla home." in paragraph 5 of Plot to break because it has been spelt wrong.

86.135.31.6 (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg DoneSpitfire 19 (Talk) 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.56.207.159, 6 June 2010
In the Plot Description, in the second sentence, please change the phrase "subsequently killed by Sabor, a rouge leopardess" to "rogue leopardess" because, obviously, rouge doesn't make any sense.

71.56.207.159 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Favonian (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Under Awards & Nominations, it says Tarzan lost most of it's Annie Awards to Toy Story 2. Toy Story 2 was not nominated for any Annie Awards until the next year. Tarzan lost most of it's Annie Awards to The Iron Giant.

1999 (Tarzan) Annie Awards: http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000032/1999 2000 (Toy Story 2) Annie Awards: http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000032/2000


 * Yes check.svg Done Removed reference to the film it lost to. Will provide link to Annie Awards for that year, so readers can see what films won and were nominated that year. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from Salodyur, 22 July 2010
UK Teaser Poster

Salodyur (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Davtra   (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To be re-released in 3-D
We all hope Disney will convert Walt Disney Pictures' Tarzan to go 3D. Here's my asking for Disney:

"Dear, Disney company, After The Lion King has been in theaters in 3-D, will you also convert your 37th animated feature Tarzan in Disney Digital 3-D in 2014. We always ever wished that this film we loved must be re-released and we will hear Phil Collins songs from this film again, and let the Walt Disney Pictures' Tarzan characters stay in the Disney Parks in Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai (upcoming), California and Florida, because Mickey Mouse will never, ever lose them out of his sight. The mind-flowing Disney Digital 3-D of Tarzan will be fantasitc, and the people will say "Looks like Disney's Tarzan tree-surfs back to big screen for the first time ever in 3-D like The Lion King was re-released in 3-D three years ago! It will be flawless! Two thumbs up!" they will say.

Thank you, mega fan

Ellen Douglas"

I'm a 17 year old girl, keep the international kids' eyes open and keep their fingers crossed and I adore Disney's Tarzan so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.204.81 (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm 17 too, I hopey Disney creates a new Tarzan movie, in the Style of the first Disney Tarzan Movie. This new Tarzan movie would begin in the end of the first Tarzan movie, I'm sure this new Tarzan movie would received success. They should use the Tarzan song from the first movie, or Phil Collins should record new songs, perfect as in the first Tarzan movie. Its too excited, to see Tarzan and Jane in a new Disney Tarzan movie. It'll be a great success for the Disney Company. Thanks for your asking, if enough megafans, write wishes to Disney, im sure they create this new Disney Tarzan movie or 3D, best both! ;) I'm a Boy --84.61.208.217 (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, Disney will re-release their version of Tarzan in Disney Digital 3-D in no time. It'll be fun and first of all, I've got an announcement to make for all the people in the Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World in Florida. Can't we wait!! (imitates Cowardly Lion) Shucks, folks. I'm speechless. DISNEY RULES WITH TARZAN!!! Go Disney! For Mickey Mouse, Long Live the King of his Animation!! Keep thy fingers crossed and eyes opened thou trusted friend and get yourself ready, for our triumphant return of Disney's the good, the great and the beautiful classic, Tarzan and it will always be in our hearts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.244.195 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a rumor of the movie to be re-released in theaters in 3-D on disneyvault.com. Can you believe that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.204.83 (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Tarzan yell
At the end it's notable that he gives an updated version of the classic Tarzan yell, as the film closes. I only bring this up because it's iconic to the point it has it's own page. Source; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DBugVZ8Tp4-2601:9:33C0:1F:F864:9B08:7882:1B1E (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
Article needs significant work, I don't get why it is locked. For starters the intro/summary contains information that is not in the article body, a large chunk of which should be moved into the main article as a "Box office" section, it would nearly enough for the summary just to say it was a hit. The box office information talks about "domestic" box office, which should say American box office (at least for a change it says worldwide and doesn't describe the rest of the world as "foreign" as far too many Wikipedia articles do). Please fix this use of "domestic" for starters.

Also the reception section is very brief, only one single positive review from an (apparently) anonymous Entertainment Weekly source is not enough. The Rotten Tomatoes score should also say how many reviews were used to create the score, and if the film was certified "Fresh" that should be mentioned too. What about Metacritic? The word "currently" should not be used, Wikipedia is not NEWS, words like "now" or "currently" or "recently" should be avoided, and if the time is actually important then *say when*. There is lots more to do, I'd might have done some of it if the article hadn't been locked. Please at the very least delete the word currently. After giving proper context to the Rotten Tomatoes score would be good and it would be great if more reviews were added, especially if they talk about different aspects of the film (not just the paint system that was already mentioned in the Production section). -- 109.255.20.91 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is protected due to the antics of a long-term vandal who targets Disney articles. I won't list the vandal's identity here as that would give them the attention they want. You raise some good points that are definitely worth implementing in the article. -- McDoob  AU  93  20:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Fix link. Related article suggestion: Deep Canvas-Meander hand drawn/CG hybrid animation software
Reference 2 link is dead: ^ a b c Essman, Scott (1999-07-05). "State of the Art of F/X". MovieMaker Magazine. Retrieved 2009-04-06. Working link is now http://www.moviemaker.com/articles-directing/state-of-the-art-of-fx-3271/

Also, info I'm looking for is if/how Eric Daniels' Deep Canvas software relates to Brian Whited's Meander, the software used in 2012 Paperman short. Both Disney. Meander discussed starting here -- this guy took heat for saying it was developed by Ed Catmull (arguments follow and Deep Canvas youtube embedded). Need wiki article! Thanks

76.212.203.45 (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Disney's Tarzan 3D
I've heard of Tarzan is re-releasing in 3D, next year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.73.105 (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unsourced rumors are not helpful here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Tarzan (2000 Black Diamond Classics VHS)
This film is not a Black Diamond title in the Walt Disney Classics line and not part of the Walt Disney Masterpiece Collection line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Tarzan in Disney Digital 3D
Disney will be announced on April 30, 2016 that Tarzan will be re-released into theatres on Friday September 16, 2016, for only four weeks in RealD 3D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.14.198 (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2015
I was not looking for this. This link is not right and should not be linked here in games catorgy. Hope some one with higher privileges remove these links to films. and to top it off link to whole franchise instead of game itself. This is not necessary as you or whoever wrote the article to gain viewer statistics is false and self promoting. The viewer in should not have to go waddling through this to find information by these redirects. By doing this you are hurting Wikipedia as whole.

69.206.144.147 (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done fixed the redirects. Stickee (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
In the first paragraph of the article says "and is the only major motion picture version of the story Tarzan property to be animated" and that's not true, due to there are other animated films based on Tarzan novel or world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarzan_in_film_and_other_non-print_media#Animated_films — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chals92 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a more accurate sentence might be "and is the only animated version of the Tarzan story to have a major theatrical release," but I don't see anything in the body to really support that. I've changed the sentence to "and is the first version of the Tarzan story to be animated," which is supported by the body. Either way, the sentence as a whole is a bit less clunky now. Kaciemonster (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Tarzan (1999 film) vs. Hercules (1997 film)
If Hercules (1997 film) will be loses, Tarzan (1999 film) wins. Tarzan (1999 film) will be re-released in theatres in Disney Digital 3D in the Fall 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.238.12 (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Release date in the infobox
I think we should keep the release date at June 16. This is the value that Box Office Mojo reports:. Their data indicates that this was the premiere, and June 18 was the wide release. Since infobox film and MOS:FILM tell us to report the date of the earliest public showing (not just the date of the widest release), this would seem to be the proper date for the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That is why I have been trying to maintain June 16.  Hard to hear over the shouting, though.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One other possibility is to put both dates in the infobox: . Maybe that would satisfy . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That would clutter the infobox, and seems a bit excessive to accommodate an individual editor.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, since Tylerkermit isn't responding, I guess I'll contact WikiProject Film for outside opinions. For their benefit, Tylerkermit says the release date should be June 18 and has cited this page at Disney.com, which conflicts with the data at Box Office Mojo, above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As you wish; I accept the idea that the premiere is the release date, and that a wide release date is superfluous. More notable films have had an even larger delay between premiere, limited release, and wide release dates.  The infobox is for simple data, and the premiere is the release.  Scr ★ pIron IV 16:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I. for one, do not see any problem with including both the premiere date and the wide release date. The Star Wars The Force Awakenspage, for instance, currently lists both the date of the premier and the wide release.--Deathawk (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If there had been a simultaneous worldwide release then there would be an argument for adding it, but I don't think there is a compelling reason for adding one date for one country. The infobox should contain information that is relevant to all readers not just readers in one particular country. We always include the premiere date and location because this is effectively the "publication" and has consequences for copyright etc. Betty Logan (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * June 15th was the US premiere? Was it not? Tarzan is a U.S film so it would make sense to put the premier date for the country of origin. For infobox purposes it really shouldn't matter whether or not it was a global release. I mean if there was a hard and fast global release it could be interesting to put, but it by no means should supersede listing the release date for the country of orgin. --Deathawk (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The majority of Wikipedia readers do not come from the United States so why would they be interested in US release information? Wikipedia is supposed to adopt a worldwide perspective which is why we include the global box office rather than domestic. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policy regarding release dates is to list the release for the country that produced the film as well as the earliest film release date. Thus, because it was produced in the USA we would include the USA release date. --Deathawk (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If the premiere was held in the United States then that is the US release date i.e. the date it was made available for public consumption. The guidelines do not state that we have to include the dates for general release or wide release on top of that. If you a US date in the box then the guideline is satisified. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I found a few more details. This is from D23, Disney's official fan site. This source says the world premiere was on June 12 at El Capitan Theatre, followed by a limited release on June 16, and a wide release on June 18. Working off that, I found this article at the Los Angeles Times that backs it up. Also, for what it's worth, this press release confirms plans for a June 12 world premiere. I'm satisfied the world premiere was on June 12. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Disney's Tarzan the 3D version
Disney's Tarzan the 3D version did never get re-released into theatres in the US in 2014. Disney's Hercules the 3D version will be re-released only in theatres for Summer 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.12.17 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tarzan (1999 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090606210336/http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/article/state_of_the_art_of_fx_3271/ to http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/article/state_of_the_art_of_fx_3271/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811214304/http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/goldenglobes/2000-golden-globe-award-winners/ to http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/goldenglobes/2000-golden-globe-award-winners/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Date
What is the source for the date in the 1880s? The TV show takes place about a year after the movie and is set in 1912, a date consistent with the original novel. Emperor001 (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Release date
Does anyone think this movie released on June 18, 1999 exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Tarzan (2D theatrical re-release)
Disney announced on January 31, 2019, that Disney's 37th animated masterpiece Tarzan will be returning to 2D movie theatres on September 15, 2028, for the first time in every generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.18.244 (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)