To start your week off right, here are some re-issues of several classic tales by Edgar Rice Burroughs, creator of Tarzan and numerous other beloved science fiction characters. The fantastic cover-art and illustrations are by the imitable Frank Frazetta, whose unmistakable art has been featured on movie posters, comic books, paperbacks, and LP’s. The combination of Burroughs and Frazetta makes these editions delightful paragons of 1970′s science fiction camp. 

 Burroughs, Edgar Rice. The Gods of Mars and the Warlords of Mars. Doubleday & Co., 1971. Illustrations by Frank Frazetta

Burroughs, Edgar Rice. Thuvia, Maid of Mars and the Chessmen of Mars. Doubleday & Co., 1972. Illustrations by Frank Frazetta

Burroughs, Edgar Rice. The Mastermind of Mars and A Fighting Man of Mars. Doubleday & Co., 1973. Illustrations by Frank Frazetta


The Legend of Tarzan (2016)

After seeing the two most recent “Planet of the Apes” entries and this year’s “The Jungle Book”, I had high hopes for “The Legend of Tarzan”. Ultimately, I’m left disappointed by this new adaptation while acknowledging that for the most part, it’s exciting and there’s a lot to like in it.

For a number of years, the man once called “Tarzan” (Alexander Skarsgård) has been living in London with his wife Jane Porter (Margot Robbie), happy to embrace the civilized life and the name of John Clayton III. Back in Africa, the Belgian government is desperate for money and makes a deal with Tarzan’s old enemy, Chief Mbonga (Djimon Hounsou): if Belgian envoy Léon Rom (Christoph Waltz) can deliver Tarzan, he will have all the diamonds required to keep the country under subjugation.

The film makes a mistake from the beginning by focusing on too many stories. I would have chosen either a tale of Tarzan coming back to the jungle to fight an old enemy, an origin story or an action adventure with ties to real-world history that explores the “Reality vs. myth” of Tarzan, “Beowulf” style. “The Legend of Tarzan” attempts to juggle all three. You get used to this idea of Tarzan living up to the legend that he is, then the picture will flashback to his origin story. Just as you’re comfortable in that groove, it moves onto this epic tale about slavery and armies of mercenaries. In a way, it teases you. You see that we have the technology to render realistic human-animal interactions, to show the Lord of the Apes swing through the air effortlessly and to display it all in glorious 3D. Unfortunately, there’s hardly any time to breathe it all in before it moves on to something else. The picture feels bloated.

As the movie plays out, you’ll be able to look past the flaws and latch onto what it does well, making you that much hungrier for more adventures of this classic hero. The action is well handled. I never thought I’d see a live-action Tarzan battling gorillas and surfing through trees in a credible way. I’ve now been proven wrong. It all feels credible and a large amount of this is due to the talented cast. I thought that Alexander Skarsgård did particularly well as a man that dances the line between savagery and civilization but is still able to control himself and unleash his jungle skills at the right time to get a one-up on his opponents, whatever shape they might take.

I wondered how this picture was going to handle material that came from the early 20th century and was set even earlier, in an age where white men were considered the saviours of Africa, where blacks were seen as an inferior race of barbarians and jungles were a dangerous place to be mowed downs so monarchs could gather up their riches. This film is a reversal of the sentiment present during the colonization of Africa. Sure, at the end of the day Tarzan – a white man – is the hero, but you knew that going in and if this is a “white saviour story” then I guess any story in which Superman saves Egypt from Gorilla Grodd or an army of rampaging mummies is too? I think it’s besides the point. There’s no doubt in the minds of the filmmakers or the audience that the Europeans coming to Africa are the real savages. There’s time spent addressing the mistreatment of blacks at the hands of white oppressors, African tribesmen and women are shown to be courageous, intelligent and noble. Even Chief Mbonga is given a character arc (not a deep one, but he does change as the plot progresses). I also appreciated the fact that real-life historical figures are inserted into the film. Chief among them is George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson who provides some comic relief in his own way), who provides plenty of heroics of his own.

I felt that the film was mostly hitting its marks, until the ending. I won’t give it away but let’s just say that it’s so big, so action-packed and so intense that it would’ve fit better in a superhero film than in a Tarzan movie. I know it sounds like an odd complaint, but I would’ve preferred something smaller, a chase through the jungle as Tarzan rips through the trees to stop fearsome Mbonga from enacting his revenge or preventing the gorillas that raised him from being captured by big game hunters. There’s no doubt that Tarzan is a superhero in the sense that he’s strong, fast, capable of swinging through trees like no one else and can speak to animals, but they take it too far by the time the film wraps up. It makes you think back to the flaws you overlooked, like a side plot involving Tarzan and Jane struggling to have children, and say “yeah, that was just kind of bad”.

In terms of looks, and on the big screen, “The Legend of Tarzan” works enough that I can give it a mild recommendation. The 3D is well utilized (it make me realize that I didn’t actually gain much from wearing those glasses in “Independence Day: Resurgence”) and when it works, you’ll be very entertained. I’m sure that someday we’ll get a definitive live-action version of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ work. This isn’t it, but until that film comes around, “The Legend of Tarzan” will do. (3D Theatrical version on the big screen, July 12, 2016)

Tarzan keeps the faith

July 1st, 2016

I really don’t understand movie critics sometimes, and movie criticism in general. let me emphasize this certainly is not what this entry is solely about, nor do I wish to start a debate on it’s merits. I do respect them…movie critics I mean. After all, it is one person’s opinion. Who am I to judge. I’m giving my own opinion right now…so it’s a little tricky to talk about. 

I’m not a student of film in an academic sense.  I did not go to film school and I am most certainly not a film critic, Nor do I wish to be. I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense, I just don’t want to be one because I think being a professional critic of anything is a difficult job.

I do love movies, and I liked the Legend of Tarzan (Film, July 2016). I liked it a lot. the critics not so much.

So what’s the problem, why am I writing about it?

Well, the whole “I like it, they didn’t scenario” happened. This isn’t the first time I’ve liked something in celluloid that the critics didn’t like, and it certainly won’t be the last. This time however it stirred something in me that I needed to examine more closely.

I was pissed.  

I realized it was more than just the fact that I liked the character of Tarzan and the world he inhabits. I realized it was more than just whining about something I liked and others didn’t.

So what got me so riled up?

What better way to deconstruct unreasonable rage then by writing about it. Works all the time. 

I suppose it’s best to start from the beginning. 

Like I said I never went to film school, but I love movies and the escapism it provides. My film school was the wooden floor of my grandparents living room where the family would often gather on weekends to watch a movie on Betamax. Since I was born in the late seventies, by the eighties the films we would often get on Betamax were much older. I’m talking Gene Kelly singing in the Rain, I’m talking Julie Andrews remembering some of her favorite things, I’m talking Charleton Heston and his Ten Commandments. I could go on, but we are talking about Tarzan right. 

One afternoon, my uncle, who was probably in his early twenties at the time, came home from the video rental store and asked me to watch a movie in the aforementioned living room. Everybody else was busy so it was just him and me, a bowl of home made popcorn, and a Liter of Coke. He plugged in “Tarzan and his Mate.”  A black and white epic starring Johnny Weissmuller as Tarzan, and Maureen o’ Sullivan as Jane.

Well that movie certainly made an impression.   

As a 10 year old, I was in awe. Weissmuller spoke like a caveman probably would if they could speak English.  it was a “ Me Tarzan, you Jane,”  type of  dialogue. At times, when he was trying to understand what he obviously couldn’t, he came off as a bumbling simpleton.

Then there came a scene where he dove of a waterfall and started swimming.

It was incredible.  

My uncle then told me that Weissmuller was an Olympic swimmer and this contributed a lot to how he cut through the water like a dolphin. When the action came, Tarzan was at his king of the Jungle best. He wrestled Alligators, and killed wild rhinos. He rode elephants and spoke to Gorillas.  He grabbed a lion by its neck and threw it to the ground. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t really care to much about the other characters. Every supporting role was incredibly interesting, from the aristocrat turned ivory thief villain, to the violent native tribesmen of the African jungle. Of course, there was Maureen O’ Sullivan’s Jane, who exuded a strong, capable jungle partner to Tarzan.

It didn’t hurt that she was easy on the eyes and barely wearing anything half the time.  

I’m not saying that to be sexist or chauvinistic in any way.

Jane’s character was always meant to be sexier, bolder. She wasn’t a prude as most women were at the time period wherein the story was taking place. She embraced her role as the King of the apes’ only queen, and her scantily clad outfits were a testament to how she defied the norm.

So that was how I was introduced to Tarzan and Jane.

As the years passed I would watch more films of Tarzan, and Television iterations as well.  There were quite a lot, and as I reached adulthood, I could confidently say that I’ve watched most of them.  it was also in my late twenties when I finally decided to seek out the original novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, and came to love the characters even more in their original form.  The films and television versions of Tarzan and Jane were mere reflections of they’re literary selves. Still, I devoured as much of  Tarzan’s world as I could, whether it was a film or a book didn’t really matter. Some of the Films and books didn’t even have the character of Jane in it, and I would have to say these were the ones I enjoyed slightly less. Tarzan, I thought, was defined not just by his prowess as a man raised by apes. This was also a man defined by the woman he loved. There was no Tarzan without Jane, and they’re relationship was ideal. This was a man capable of great strength and wildness, and his life was more often than not surrounded by  brutality and violence…but he treated his wife with gentle protectiveness, and kindness. Jane was a woman of beauty and stature, whose strength is in her willingness to stand by a man no matter what, accepted him for who he was, and fought along side him, despite the dangers involved. Tarzan and Jane, I believe, represented what a man and woman can be to each other if they gave each other the freedom to be who they really were, at a time on this earth when being yourself was almost impossible.

The new Film, The Legend of Tarzan, protects and embraces this old fashioned ideal. Tarzan (played by Alexander Skarsgard) and Jane (played by margot Robbie) are at the center of the Film, and they’re relationship is what drives the narrative. The Film is very old fashioned in it’s sensibilities but it strikes a more modern stance on it’s look.

I thought it was amusing that the critics complained a lot that there weren’t any real animals in the movie.  It’s true that the animals in the film were all CG (Computer Generated) special effects, very good special effects in my opinion, but special effects nonetheless. Some critics took issue with the realism of the film…so it seems they preferred that real trained animals be used, and of course they were possibly hoping it’s those type of animals that are actually patient enough to wait for the director to shout “action” before roaring, or the type that won’t be biting the actor’s hand off because it’s not in the script. You know when Steven Spielberg used CG Dinosaurs nobody really whined about them not being real enough…Oh wait, is it because Gorillas still exist? Oh well then by all means let’s get a real Gorilla to do it!

You can’t please everyone.  

I’m all for realism. In the last decade we’ve learned to deal with the excess of CG on film and a lot of film makers are now trying to navigate that “genie is out of the bottle” situation and keep it in check, and use it not as a gimmick but as a way to serve the narrative. A lot of films and filmmakers have done a great job in recent years to do just that, but I should probably save my comments on that for a later post.

Going back to Tarzan, I personally thought that the CG animals were in no way a distraction, and it was excellent in representing the nature of the Gorillas that Tarzan grew up with in the original novel. The film actually captures a lot of who Tarzan was as a man raised by apes, and his transformation to John Clayton III, Earl of Greystoke, as he was written in Edgar Rice Burroughs’ novels.  The action was done in such a way that it wasn’t over the top, but it had that same swashbuckling spirit that the old films did. Margot Robbie, who plays Jane, says something to Christophe Waltz, who plays the villain Leon Rom, that sum’s up what the film is really about. ( You can skip this next paragraph if you wish to remain spoiler free, although it’s not that spoilery, so I urge you to continue)

While Jane dines with Rom against her will, the villain relishes in confidence that his gamble to take Jane to lure Tarzan to a confrontation that would benefit him and those he serves will be successful. She keeps her composure amidst the subtle cruelty the great actor Mr. Waltz demonstrates through his character Rom, and Jane utters “…A normal man would do anything to save the woman he loves…My husband…is no ordinary man.”

the film was an old fashioned Jungle adventure, and I’ve sorely missed the swashbuckling - adventure genre that Indiana Jones, Zorro, and the old Tarzan flicks provided me in my youth.  This genre was always more simple, and straight forward, and I guess I really missed it. Sure we have our giant blockbusters and our superhero movies, and lately they’ve been doing they’re best to be as realistic as possible, and that’s ok. But every now and then you hanker for a good old western yarn or a biblical epic, or another unrealistic swing through the Jungles of Africa.  These swashbuckling daring do’s always made you feel that the film was made for no other reason then to give you a good time.  

Before seeing a film it’s become a habit of mine, to look at websites with film reviews and overall summaries of the film I’m about to see, just to get an idea of what to expect. I’ve been doing it for years…I also know when not to give a crap and watch it anyway. With Tarzan, I was hoping that the critics who I normally consider to be reliable, would get mixed feelings about the film.  If they did, I had a feeling I was really going to enjoy it.

So why did I hope the critics wouldn’t like that much?

Because as much as I trusted they’re opinion on movies in general, I knew that they didn’t get Tarzan. Critics are looking at the Legend of Tarzan as a film, and what makes a film work and not work in this day and age. As I said, it’s they’re job, and it’s a difficult one…but with Tarzan we keep our expectations to a minimum:  

Is Jane it? Check!

Does Tarzan battle an evil villain bent on ruining the Jungles of Africa and everyone in it? Check!

Does he swing around on a vine and do stunt work? Check!

Are there some good panoramic shots of Africa? Check!

Is the animal kingdom represented and does Tarzan converse with any species? Check!

Is there a fair amount of action in it? Check!

Tarzan is a household name. You can go around the world, and meet non-English speaking people, who will not understand a word you say, but they will know who Tarzan is. Every one does. It’s critic- proof.

I suppose this leads to my question of why I was so pissed in the first place. It didn’t seem right to expect a Tarzan film to be anything else than what it truly was, which is a Tarzan film. It should be it’s own Genre, if you ask me. I was hoping the critics would not like as much so as to prove to myself that Tarzan was on a level far higher than any criticism and thus ensure my enjoyment.  However upon seeing the mixed reviews, and criticisms I was disheartened. Despite my own selfish resolve that I would indeed relish the enjoyment of seeing this new film, as a Tarzan enthusiast, I feared for the characters’ future.  The internet is a raging monster of influence. I feared the bad reviews might push some of the younger generation of today from missing out on an old fashioned action adventure because the internet said it’s a rotten movie.

My faith in humanity went down a notch.

Thus saying to myself to be careful what I wish for, Thus prompting this written deconstruction.

Will I ever see Tarzan and Jane on film again?

July 5, 2016

A few days later after writing the above entry, Tarzan, decided I was being just a little to dramatic.

Chill out, all is not lost.

I was quite pleased to read the news a few days ago, that despite the critical bashing the film received, it performed beyond expectations in the domestic front, closing a first 4-day gross of $38 million domestically, and is at $76 million worldwide as of July 6th 2016, a feat well beyond the Flop critics were expecting.  it has yet to open in China, which is a huge market for oversees revenue. Tarzan remains the epitome of defying the odds.

I was double pleased to watch it in a cinema filled with families and kids.  Fathers like me taking they’re children to watch a Tarzan flick for the first time, ignoring what critics wanted it to be, and enjoying a Tarzan film for what it is. It’s Romance, it’s Intrigue, It’s danger lurking around every tree, It’s high adventure!

Faith in Humanity restored.

if you’re looking for some kind of existential meaning to the universe, if you’re looking to be emotionally stirred or drained, if you’re looking for an intricate plot worthy of an Oscar or Sundance nod of greatness, you might have to skip this one.

If you’re looking for 2 hours of escapism, some solid action adventure with a dash of romance, a simple battle of good vs. evil type plot…basically a Tarzan movie, then you’ve come to the right place.

The Legend of Tarzan Review


Me, Tarzan. You, audience. “The Legend of Tarzan” is the latest in a long line of cinematic adaptations of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ tree swinging hero. The legendary ‘King of the Apes’ meets his finest hour in this newest version of his famed story from “Harry Potter” series director David Yates, accompanied with a talented, diverse cast, the likes every previous incarnation of “Tarzan” has never seen. What the film lacks in originality, Yates and company make up with charisma, charm, and epic escapism.

“The Legend of Tarzan” begins in late Eighteenth Century London, with our hero having long been domesticated as John Clayton III, Lord of Greystoke (played by Alexander Skarsgård) living peacefully with his beloved wife Jane Porter Clayton (played by Margot Robbie). The path of their lives takes a sharp turn once the couple are informed of Belgian leader King Leopold’s succession of the Congo, and the whisperings of him enslaving local tribesman as a source of capital to make up for harsh financial times. The duo happily return to their African roots, albeit accompanied by charismatic American marksman George Washington Williams (played by Samuel L. Jackson), to face the wrath of henchman Captain Léon Rom (played by Christoph Waltz), King Leopold’s right hand sent to carryout his dirty work. Filtered with glimpses of the Ape King’s past we’re more than familiar with, the Lord of Greystoke must once again swing from the African vines to stop the corrupt Belgians, and save his former home.

Being that there’s a new mega-blockbuster in theaters every week, and the principal character has existed for well over a hundred years, it’s quite a task to bring something new and original to a story that has been told many times over, both in print and on screen. The filmmakers decided to go against the grain in this latest venture of the pulp icon, ignoring another re-telling of his origin portrayed best in 1999’s animated sensation “Tarzan”, heading more in the direction of 1984’s “Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan – Lord of the Apes” which focuses on a domesticated Tarzan. Screenwriters Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer leap from the domestication premise and create their own sort of “Dark Knight Returns” story for the Ape King, but its riddled with instances we’re all too familiar with when it comes to this legend. Stampedes, ape fights, and tree loping aren’t anywhere near new ground that this film drastically could’ve benefited from. Though the film flows smoothly and is paced well, it took other factors than its script to make this an enjoyable experience.

One factor that clearly separates “The Legend of Tarzan” from all other screen incarnations lies in director David Yates. He brings the magic he brought to the four “Harry Potter” films to his latest picture, but also brings the romance and earnestness of great pulp storytelling as well. Even though the film’s script does harbor to repetitiveness from other motion pictures of today, he manages to find the right balance of tone that escalates his film to wondrous heights. The film’s lightness is an ingredient that doesn’t outstay its welcome that could send the film into a mess of CGI and slapstick, and its seriousness doesn’t drag itself into being a dull, depressing ordeal. For instance, there’s a magnificent scene where both Tarzan and Williams are confronted by an army of apes. Instead of only being a scene of action and an alarming amount of tension, Yates orchestrates a subtle gag that reminds you a period piece of a man who can seemingly talk to apes.

Yates’ work with the camera is very commendable as well. He and his cinematographer Henry Braham do such a remarkable job of capturing the African landscape, you’d be surprised to discover that it was mostly shot on soundstages in London. Between the beautiful compositions of villages of the Congo and the vast forest, the duo manage to elegantly bring to life the world Edgar Rice Burroughs presented to us merely over a hundred years ago.

Other factors that breathed new life into this recycled tale is it’s exquisite cast. David Yates did a marvelous job implementing a diverse, talented group of actors, with each player bringing their own special strengths that perfectly fit like a glove with this particular movie.

Alexander Skarsgård proves he deserves to be a leading man, as he owns the role of the hero Tarzan. He brings an equal amount of intensity and sincerity to the character, albeit a very reserved approach, making both his ‘John Clayton’ and ‘Tarzan’ personas a relatable individual. He also spent some very quality time in the gym, making his performance all the more believable.

Margot Robbie continues to be a force of nature of an actress as she staples herself as the pulse of the film in her role as Jane. Beauty aside, her tenacity makes the character more of a pulp figure than her literary counterpart, throwing the tired damsel-in-distress act to the side and taking full force of the reigns of her life. She dishes in as much action as her husband does, if not more.

The chemistry between the two leads literally drips off of the screen. It’s the calm, quiet moments between the two of them that embellish the passion their characters have for one another. In a year where not many great romances have been portrayed with both empathy and authenticity, Robbie and Skarsgård are undeniably the best on-screen couple so far in 2016.

Both Christoph Waltz and Samuel L. Jackson bring their A-game in supporting their fellow leading performers. Astonishingly, they both bring multiple layers to characters, whom not doubt on paper, read like one-dimensional roles. If Skarsgård and Robbie are the heart and pulse of the picture, Waltz is its terror. He brings a mild ruthlessness to Rom that goes from zero to a hundred within an instance, bringing his cold wickedness to another level than just merely being a slaver. Jackson is the film’s funnybone; there’s not one moment he’s on screen where you can’t help but smile, though he does provide one excellent moment that keeps him from solely being the comic relief.

Another great supporting performance is delivered from actor Djimon Hounsou, playing the role of an African tribal leader who’s got an axe to grind with Tarzan. I won’t say more cause I don’t want to spoil his role, but I will say that he pulls out an excellent scene with Skarsgård, brining a surprising dimension to his leading man’s portrayal.

Though it’s filled with material we’re almost too familiar with, “The Legend of Tarzan” manages to be an excellent surprise of a summer release. It shills and thrills as it whisks audiences away back to the glory days when pulp figures captured the imaginations instead of cape-donned superheroes. Though it wasn’t accompanied by a Grammy winning Phil Collins soundtrack, “The Legend of Tarzan” manages to muscle and charm its way to being the best live-action adaptation of it’s source material.

Kingdom Hearts Topical Discussion: Deep Jungle

Anybody who knows me when it comes to Disney that not only is Tarzan one of my favourite films of all time, but that also its world in Kingdom Hearts 1, Deep Jungle, is my favourite world of the franchise. Not much because its based off of my fave movie alone, but rather it actually helped to contribute a LOT to the plot of the main game without relying too much on retelling the original movie. Anybody who didn’t see the post I reblogged can see it here why its my fave. http://hsrw101.tumblr.com/post/147262889151/deep-jungle-kingdom-hearts

But ever since Chain of Memories for the Game Boy Advanced, it was left out, leading to multiple guesses why but never really answered, but thanks to GamersJoint bringing the topic back in his video here:

I can finally give my say on the topic and the frustration I have when it comes to different opinions of the world.

The reason for Tarzan’s disappearance since the first game is most likely they didn’t renew the permission from the Burroughs family. I’m not sure if Disney has the permission to continue making merchandise and properties related to the movie since it is still very successful, an Oscar winner and it was the final film of the Disney Renaissance. But since the game is mostly distributed by Square Enix, its safe to assume that Square refused to pay extra for the permission extension. And because of Tarzan’s exclusion from Chain of Memories, it led some fans to believe that Tarzan has been retconned out of the franchise, something that even people continue that belief on TVTropes. Which I call bull shit on!

Just because the Tarzan world can’t be mentioned in other forms of media and merchandise, doesn’t mean its story and involvement hasn’t been retconned! As explained in the link to the blog post above, its story and how it was told not only helped to give character development between Sora and Donald when they had their tiff about which mission to focus on, but its story structure helped to foreshadow a lot of the major events to the story which also became some of the most iconic scenes and metahphors for the game! And while at it, can ALSO connect to other games made years later such as Birth By Sleep!

They could still even post screenshots of the main 3 characters IN Deep Jungle in different media but just can’t show the actual characters of the Tarzan license. Hell, while at it, if they couldn’t use the Tarzan license anymore even with just Deep Jungle in one game, they would’ve removed that world when they revamped the game from scratch for the PS3, reorchestrating the music for the Deep Jungle world, hell, they even took the time to give Tarzan an updated HD model!

Not to mention Tarzan still holds the honour of being the very first world exclusive party member to the Kingdom Hearts franchise. It could’ve gone to any of the other ones but since its story was used to foreshadow the main events in the game, it made sense that Tarzan got that role!

My point is that I don’t buy the whole retcon belief involving Deep Jungle, they don’t reference all the worlds all the time in their games. Hell, in the opening sequence for Re: Coded, they didn’t even include sections from the PotC world Port Royal, and that was OWNED by Disney themselves! If we go by that logic, then Sora never encountered Jack Sparrow and everything involved in that world, even their battle with Orgnization XIII and its importance to the game’s story, just because they never bring it up again.

Plus in hindsight with future games and how we revisit several Disney worlds over…and over…and over…and OVER again! (Wonderland, Olympus Coliseum, Agrabah, Halloween Town) I think the Deep Jungle world got off lucky. It may be only in one game, but at least now Deep Jungle is the exclusive world to the original Kingdom Hearts making it more unique, whereas before that was Halloween Town for its surprise inclusion. So it’ll never wear out. I hold the firm belief that a visit to one world in a title should be more than enough because otherwise as shown in CoM, 358/2 Days, Re: Coded and to some extent, Unchained X (Chi), repeat visits to those worlds can get old REALLY fast. That’s what gained Dream Drop Distance a lot of brownie points for heavily focusing on a LOT of new Disney worlds not used yet.

Finally, this one is more of a minor point but I find its a common complaint among those who don’t like Deep Jungle and that’s the platforming and the claim they keep getting lost in it. …I don’t know how or what they were playing but that never bothered me O_o. It was pretty straight forward for me on where to go in terms of navigation, one would think those complains would go to Monstro since that world is literally a freaking maze! They wanna talk about navigation gripes, Deep Jungle is a one way road compared to that technicolour bowel system! As for the platforming…well again, never bothered me so I guess it just depends either on one’s skills or patience. But at least it feels more like you’re exploring a world that isn’t just flat ground.

Overall, I hope I made my point as to why not only why Deep Jungle is my fave world in the Kingdom Hearts franchise, but also why I don’t want every world to just be reliving moments from the movie, its lazy and wasteful. And while I can’t speak for everyone in terms of how they like to play the game. The Tarzan world to me felt like it captured the best in between, and I hold its involvement as a critical point to the expansion of the Kingdom Hearts lore. And anyone who says otherwise either don’t do the research or just dislike the world all together for the most petty of reasons. Its not a perfect world, but to deny its contribution to the franchise is like denying every other Disney world in Kingdom Hearts!


Tumblr, you’ve failed me again. Will Murray has written a new Tarzan novel set in the prehistoric land of Pal-Ul-Don, and you didn’t tell me.

Yeah, I know. I’m probably the only guy here who cares about Tarzan or John Carter, but come on. Have you never felt the never to run half-naked in a world full of fantastic creatures?