Talk:The Legend of Tarzan (film)

Posthumous
The movie also marked Jerry Weintraub produced posthumously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:7970:94E8:6817:BFAE (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is something we mark on the person's article, as it is more relevant in their personal timeline than the movie's timeline. BOVINEBOY 2008 02:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Expanding Reception Section
The reception section for this article is way too short and does not have any reviews from notable critics. This section needs to be expanded with reviews from notable critics added to it in order to give the article more balanced coverage.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

duh...
"For a while, producer Jerry Weintraub ... wanted swimmer Michael Phelps to play the title role feeling that he was the heir apparent to Johnny Weissmuller, the original actor who played Tarzan and also a famous competitive swimmer."

Hello? The first actor to play Tarzan in the movies was Elmo Lincoln in 1918. Yes, there were movies in 1918. And earlier. Duh...

Historical Accuracy
Is it logical to possibly add a section regarding the historical accuracy of the movie background? Maybe as a separate page? I am curious as to how the backstory of this modern illustration can be justified through the history books. To my knowledge, I am aware that as the result of the Berlin Conference of 1884, Belgium, under King Leopold II, was granted a vast amount of land in the Congo. Additionally, the character Léon Rom, the bad guy, was actually King Leopold II’s authoritative presence in the Belgium Congo. Enforcing and exercising the atrocities of slavery, he was largely known as the ‘Butcher of the Congo’, which seems to parallel his role in the movie. Subsequently, the American presence in the movie, George Washington Williams. William’s character sets on a mission to expose the Belgium implications of slavery on the African natives. In terms of historical accuracy, William’s character background in the movie checks out. Although it rather obvious that certain aspects of the plot are purely for cinematic purposes, I think a section that justifies the historical accuracy of the background would do this page justice, even if it is denoted in a minimal section. Rnavarro1095 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To the extent that independent reliable sources discuss it, we can add it to the article. To repeat: To the extent that independent reliable sources discuss the historical accuracy of this children's film's treatment of European colonialism in 19th century Africa, we can add it to the article. I'd like to suggest you are unlikely to find such sources. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

White savior narrative?
What warrants this movie from having this on the "See also" section? Did the film get accused by critics as having a white savior narrative? Is there even merit to such a concept? 66.219.216.74 (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)