Joseph Neyer wrote:

No, the discussion was whether the earlier Tarzan films were big-budget A-pictures or not; you, with your usual inimitable combination of offensively in-your-face cockiness and jaw-droppingly astonishing ignorance, said they weren't. Read some of the entries under MGM on this page (http://www.geostan.ca/films.html)  and actually get a handle on how big the Tarzans were in their time; the idea of a primitive but noble hero living in a jungle paradise and keeping unspoiled by fighting off both local animal and native enemies and greedy exploiters from the outside world proved a really resonant idea with audiences during the Depression.  

A few additional facts and figures: The first Tarzan film, Tarzan the Ape Man, was budgeted at $652, 675 (which, adjusted to inflation, translates to $9,519,001 in 2015); its worldwide gross was $919,000, which translates to $13,403,244 today--definitely a "big" picture.

Tarzan And His Mate, the second and most popular of the MGM Tarzans, was more expensive but also more lucrative; it cost MGM about $1,279,142 to make--which translates to $18,655,769 in 2015. It grossed, worldwide, $2,239,000, which would be $32,654,911 today.

The fact that Burroughs disliked the Tarzan movies has absolutely nothing to do with whether they were hits or not; the Fleming quote about Dr. No evidences, most authors don't really care for screen adaptations--and it never has the slightest effect on the box-office. A few other examples: A. E. W. Mason loathed the 1939 movie adaptation of his The Four Feathers; John Buchan didn't particularly care for Hitchcock's version of his book The 39 Steps; the nephew of Carlo Collodi (author of Pinocchio) asked Mussolini's government to sue Walt Disney for his movie version of his uncle's book.

Burroughs' own Tarzan production, incidentally, was a low-budget serial that was filmed on location and was closer to Burroughs' conception, but which didn't make anywhere near the profit the MGM Tarzans did--partly because the location filming wreaked so much havoc on cast and camera equipment; again, international filming simply wasn't feasible until the post-war era.


See, just the idea that you work so hard to explain that the films doubled their money is just another example of how much these films were not in the same league with the later blockbuster franchises, which obviously more than simply doubled their costs, lol.

Yes, Burrough's hate for the MGM films had nothing to do with their financial goals, I agree.

And it's simply not fair to the Tarzan films to be compared to the bigger, location-shot films of later years, innately they all feel smaller because of the creative constrictions.

They may have had some money behind them, but the TARZAN FILMS CAN'T EVEN BE CALLED THE BIGGEST ADVENTURE FILM IN THE 30'S. 
That title goes to Kong.

I'm sure they were good, for the time and place and space they were made in, just not as big or influential as the Bond films, the Star Wars films, and the Indy films.

If they'd have sustained them, they'd have made as many as the Bond films, which they clearly have not.