That said, this Tarzan movie is the best I've seen yet. Despite their conflation of both people and places and completely changing Jane Porter's back story
... it was OK. And I've never thought a Tarzan movie was OK before. It felt like a Tarzan tale. 
Alexander Skarsgård made a good Tarzan, despite being blond.
I first started reading Tarzan books when I was about 9 years old. I had the whole set as soon as I could afford them. They were dog-eared and almost worn out by the time I went away to college. When the guy I was dating at the time and I found out we BOTH had the entire set of books.... we got married. This weekend we saw the new movie and were both rather satisfied by it. It would have been better if they'd stuck to canon- but at heart it was done well.
I've started listening to the audiobook version of the first novel this week. The reader takes his time with every syllable and even though I could quote memorable sentences along with him if I wanted to- he manages to draw my attention to different words and phrases just by the emphasis he puts on them.
For instance:
That got me thinking. The book was written over 100 years ago and it looks as though "having an adventure" was a bad thing back then. Perhaps the attitude was widespread and that's why Tolkien wrote hobbits as being so adventure adverse? Adventure doesn't really have those connotations today.With a little cry of joy and relief she ran forward to greet them, throwing her arms around her father’s neck and bursting into tears for the first time since they had been cast upon this hideous and adventurous shore.
I've seen the movie once. I'll probably only watch it one more time when it comes out in blu-ray because I really missed having subtitles. No more. If I watch it a bunch of times I'll start shredding it in my mind and will become as bitter about it as I did with the LOTR movies. Limited exposure is the key, I think.
I may have to study still pics of Alexander Skarsgård, though. To see if they got the scars right.....
