Read the book

So Reuters doesn't like the WB's new Tarzan.

In the opener, we learn that Tarzan's real name is John and that as a young child he was the soul survivor of a private plane crash in Africa that killed his parents. His father was in charge of Greystoke Industries, which has its own big building with an infinite number of security guards. After his father's death, Greystoke was run by John's evil uncle, Richard Clayton (Mitch Pileggi). Somehow, in ways not yet made clear, the very presence of Tarzan, though he possesses no MBA or takeover skills, is a big threat to Clayton.

Hm. "Soul survivor". Interesting.

You know, there was quite enough family intrigue in the original book. As some of you probably know, Tarzan's real name is John Clayton, and one of the conflicts in the first two books arose from the havoc it would play within his family should he claim his inheritance. Jane was engaged to his cousin William Clayton, who currently bore the title of Lord Greystoke, and even though Tarzan learned, and could prove, that the title was rightfully his...

"The title and the estates meant nothing to me without you, dear," he replied. "And if I had taken them away from him I should have been robbing the woman I love--don't you understand, Jane?"

Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those who begrudges every change made when a story is adapted to a different medium. And it's not entirely fair (as the reviewer later points out) to judge this story on the basis of its pilot episode alone (although the WB had to judge whether to continue the story based on little more).

But I am bemused whenever anyone approaches an established classic, known to millions worldwide for decades, and decides that the basic story is broken. I was skeptical when Ron Howard "fixed" the Grinch, and I'm skeptical that WB is capable of "fixing" Tarzan (except, possibly, in the veterinary sense).

I accepted Disney's version of Tarzan because, despite the inevitable pro-environment / anti-gun slant, the essential character seemed right. Did WB do as well? No way to tell from this review.

(I'm speaking of the Disney feature. I haven't seen enough of the animated series to judge it.)

(And, of course, I have little room to talk, having "fixed" Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde for ARTC myself. But I'll put my version against anybody's in terms of fidelity to the original story. I didn't even create a love interest, something everyone else seems compelled to do.)