Original author is V.Marakhovsky, translation is mine with some exclusions to keep it short.

Firstly and shortly let’s talk about what you can’t show in the progressive cinematography under no circumstances. At the end of XIXth century a couple of exemplary representatives of the white race, English lord and his wife, are marooned and eventually killed in the jungle by the tribe of primates, standing somewhere between gorillas and humans in their evolutionary development. An infant, their son, is adopted and raised by the female ape. The baby, named “White Skin” (Tarzan), survives in the constant struggle with hostile environment with the help of the rational mind and noble instincts, inherited from his parents. He defeats his enemies, a lower beings: gorillas, fellow tribesmen, a neighboring African tribe (originally “negro”, hereinafter translated as “African” – mai); saves a group of white people; and eventually returns back to Europe, taking the best from two worlds: a civilization and wildness, thus becoming a true example of a superhuman.

This was the story of Tarzan, written in the beginning of XXth century by the great American pulp fiction writer E.R.Burroughs. As a part of a mass culture, Burroughs was fully immerged into the collective instincts of his time and society, hence his “Tarzan of the Apes” was full of motives that pushed progressive nations of European civilization forward at the time of turmoil: racism, natural like a breath of an air; unquestionable faith in the “burden of the white man”; and actively proclaimed at the time on both shores of the Atlantics necessity from time to time to release oneself from the restrictions of civilization, to become wild so to speak, so these restrictions won’t strangle the life force of the race. A white man is not noble only thanks to his upbringing or education, he is the bearer of supreme heritage and his morals are in his blood – that’s what was depicted in the novel of Tarzan (and eventually was brought to life by certain *cough* political trends running rampart in Europe a couple decades latter – mai).

At first all these “dionysims” raised no questions. In the most well known among “old” movies about Tarzan, the very same from 1932 starring Johnny Weissmuller, the main idea behind the novel was emphasized when the hero saved white people from the bunch of black pygmy cannibals.

But today Tarzan is more than hundred years old. It’s different time nowadays, and the image of white, a god-like character thanks to his wildness, needs to be buried under the tons of politically correct cushions.

And that means:
1)    You can’t film evil savage African people.
2)    You can’t film evil wild animals.
3)    You can’t film white supremacy.
4)    At the same time you can’t film evil Western civilization as well.

The question why you even need to film a story about a hero, who became a symbol of supremacy and might, in these circumstances hangs in the air unanswered. The only answer is as long you have a brand you have to use it, it doesn’t bother the owner of the brand how, make something up.

That’s how the movie “The Legend of Tarzan” was born. After inhumane operation on a screenplay a “feral god ” has been turned inside out and brought to life.

Tarzan-2016 is a wildlife protection activist and a traditional African ethnicities protection activist, defending Pandora from the Earth starships I mean black continent from the mis-display of the civilization. He saves good African people from evil colonizer in the “pith” panama hat, an entire Congo from black ships with 20 thousands mercs on them, who are about to come and enslave the continent. Beside good African people and gorilla stepbrother, in his quest he is helped by: a good guy from civilized world, Samuel L. Jackson; Jane something, raised among good African people, a pride of lions he was raised among, and few thousands computer-generated antelopes, he commands as he wishes during his battle operations. And thus white “pith” panama hat is defeated, black ships U-turn and sail back immediately.

…Because this “Tarzan” has been turned inside out, the entire reality in this movie has been turned inside out as well.

In the movie Tarzan with his great effort cancels colonization of Congo, while it did happen in reality and cost country tens millions of lives, was accompanied by millions of cut hands of the aborigines and tremendous enrichment of small comfortable Belgium.

In the movie Tarzan is helped by the black American, who feels guilt for the genocide of the natives, even though in the real life just few years after States have fought Philippines from Spain, made a colony out of it and after ruthless genocide established their rule over the country for the next half of the century.

In other words, the story of Tarzan comes from some other planet Earth, rewritten in retrospect. On that planet if some genocides and enslavement did happen it was merely due to will of some evildoers in white panama hats, and not part of historical process. That planet was always blessed with eternal values of eco-movement, animal rights and tradition of indigenous people, which have been always well-acknowledged and protected by the civilization bearers.

Basically what we see is barefaced and blasphemous attempt to cancel the history of mankind as it is, turn everything into fancy-dressed variation of modern times, as it understood by the the most progressive claque.

But if in the similar example of “Independence Day 2”, when an afterthought inclusion of homosexual couple and African tribe that fought aliens for many years only makes the viewer chuckle, it’s much sadder story with Tarzan. Because that’s exactly the case of “restrictions of civilization strangle one's life force”. Original Tarzan, made as an archetype of supremacy, becomes castrated and losses its meaning and content.

Why he is white? Why he is so strong? What this was all about? These are left unanswered, because answers to these are in reality of “real” historical image of Tarzan character, which is prohibited from entering modern delicate times.

…By the way that’s not the only archetype, that has been banned from mass culture. Robinson Crusoe, a hero-civilizer; Sir Galahad, hero-protector of the faith; Robin Hood, a hero-protector of the oppressed, – all of them have been banned and replaced with puppets under the same names, actuating same ideology of varicolored sameness, law-obedience and moderate progress within the restrictions of the law.