Tarzanxshameofjane1995engl High Quality Work

Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions

Tarzanxshameofjane1995engl High Quality Work

Fans of Tarzan’s legacy might appreciate the creative risk, while general audiences seeking lesser-known interpretations could enjoy the freshness. However, the 1995 context means the production might not meet modern technical standards. The "high quality" label should be taken in historical context—praise for ingenuity and passion rather than polished execution.

A standout aspect would be how this piece contrasts with Burroughs’ novels or Disney’s 1999 adaptation. While it may lack the resources of a major studio production, its independent spirit could make it endearing. The focus on Jane’s inner conflict might resonate with contemporary audiences, offering a more nuanced exploration of the characters beyond action-driven plots.

If this work reimagines Jane Porter as a central figure, it could explore her perspective in a Tarzan story, a narrative often sidelined by traditional tales. The "shame" subplot might delve into Jane's emotional or societal struggles, perhaps addressing themes like betrayal, identity, or resilience. Tarzan’s role could evolve from a jungle hero to a more introspective character, sharing depth with Jane. This approach could challenge the gender dynamics of Burroughs’ original works, offering a fresh lens. tarzanxshameofjane1995engl high quality work

"Tarzan X Shame of Jane 1995" appears to be a bold, speculative project that reimagines Tarzan’s world through Jane’s eyes. While its origins and scope remain unclear due to the title’s ambiguity, the work’s high-quality execution—by 90s standards—suggests a dedicated creator or team. For enthusiasts of classic adventure tales or those curious about experimental retellings, this piece offers a thought-provoking take on familiar characters. Its true value lies not in technical perfection but in its creative ambition to humanize Jane, offering a unique contribution to Tarzan’s ever-evolving legacy.

Wait, looking up, there's a Tarzan novel called "The Wisdom of Koko" sometimes, but "Shame of Jane" isn't a recognized title. Therefore, this might be a user-created title or a misunderstanding. The user might be referring to a work they found online or a specific fan-made version. Since the user mentioned "high quality work," maybe it's a well-made fan fiction or perhaps a digital painting, a video edit, or something else. The "1995" could be confusing because the original Tarzan stories are much older. Maybe the user saw this as a file or a video named "tarzanxshameofjane1995engl" and wants a review based on that. Since I can't access external information, I have to rely on the given data. Fans of Tarzan’s legacy might appreciate the creative

If this is a fan-made work, potential shortcomings might include limited budget, which could affect CGI quality or narrative depth. The ambiguity around the "Shame of Jane" concept might also leave some questions unanswered, relying on viewer interpretation to fill gaps.

Assuming it's a high-quality English digital artwork or short film from 1995, the review should note the production value, visuals, and any unique aspects that set it apart. If "Shame of Jane" is a twist on the original story, the review could discuss the creative direction—how Jane's role is portrayed, any new storylines, character development, etc. Also, considering the 90s context, maybe it uses 90s technology for its time, so comment on the era-appropriate production. Since Tarzan is typically in the 1990s for the main series, though Burroughs wrote in the early 20th century. A standout aspect would be how this piece

First, confirm the user's actual request. They want a review that's high quality, so I need to structure it formally. The title seems to mix elements, so the review should address both Tarzan and Jane, the 1995 context, and whatever "Shame of Jane" entails. Since it's in English and high quality, maybe the user is referring to a digital artwork, a short film, or a digital animation. The review should mention how well the work presents the characters, the production quality, perhaps the artistic style, and whether it stays true to the original characters. But with the lack of specific details, I have to make educated guesses.

FibS

Member
tarzanxshameofjane1995engl high quality work

Technically, zoophilia is a theme (attraction to non-sapient animals) and bestiality is an action (intercourse between a sapient and non-sapient animal.)

However, in common parlance, bestiality has been generalized to mean the same thing as zoophilia, and tags are defined based on how users are expected to use them

Updated by anonymous

Wodahseht

Former Staff
tarzanxshameofjane1995engl high quality work

Zoophilia is really more psychological state than something you can see in an image.

The physical act between human/feral is bestiality. That's what we can see, that's what we tag.

So it's not so much that they are assumed to be the same tags, but that in art you can't generally tell the difference.

Also, combining avoids arguments over:
- "They are obviously in love, this should have zoophilia tag!"
- "All I see is a man having sex with a penguin, switching it back to bestiality."
- "But look how happy they both are. Zoophilia."
- "They're both just enjoying the sex. Bestiality."

Updated by anonymous

WarCanine

Blocked
tarzanxshameofjane1995engl high quality work

Ah, I just realized something.
'Straight' and 'Gay' are also tags, but they are applied to images with male/male sex and male/female sex.
This does not mean both characters are gay or straight,
this just means the sex they're having is related to
that sexual orientation.(For some reason.)
So this also counts for the 'Zoophilia' tag. (Even though not all people who have sex with non-human animals are zoophiles, but that's how these tags work, apparently.)

Looks like the tag system works a bit different than I expected and isn't 100% accurate.

Updated by anonymous

Clawdragons

Member
tarzanxshameofjane1995engl high quality work

WarCanine said:
Ah, I just realized something.
'Straight' and 'Gay' are also tags, but they are applied to images with male/male sex and male/female sex.
This does not mean both characters are gay or straight,
this just means the sex they're having is related to
that sexual orientation.(For some reason.)
So this also counts for the 'Zoophilia' tag. (Even though not all people who have sex with non-human animals are zoophiles, but that's how these tags work, apparently.)

Looks like the tag system works a bit different than I expected and isn't 100% accurate.

Yeah. Technical accuracy isn't as important as a few other factors - such as ease of searchability, expected usage, and so on. This is why, for instance, pteranodon implies dinosaur, even though we know and recognize that pteranodons were not dinosaurs.

I do understand your point about zoophilia (I'm a zoophile myself, after all, and in many contexts I consider the distinction between bestiality and zoophilia to be an important one to make) in this case it just isn't worth the fights. It's too subjective.

Updated by anonymous

PlüschTiger

Blocked
tarzanxshameofjane1995engl high quality work

Clawdragons said:
I do understand your point about zoophilia (I'm a zoophile myself, after all, and in many contexts I consider the distinction between bestiality and zoophilia to be an important one to make) in this case it just isn't worth the fights. It's too subjective.

Could decide e621 times! Sometimes it is extremely important to label secondary things to every detail and create tags for it. That happened with X-ray. It was absolutely necessary to be aware of the x-ray is the medical procedure, although this is completely irrelevant for the side function. Nevertheless, several pictures were renamed and the wiki changed, whereby X-ray pictures are no longer traceable and searchable.

Another time it does not matter whether rape and violence (bestiality) and love + consensual sex (zoophilia) together in a concept. Why do not terminate the term search and discussion at (for example) Cuntboy, and call all Intersex that is easier.

Especially the wrong name in the media is what zoophilia gives a bad call. Bestiality is an offense when it's on the wrong picture is similar to Cuntboy and Dickgirl. I myself know a zoophile. Bestiality provides zoophiles, with horse slaughtering on a step. At Bestiality, or Zoophilia, we are talking about more than 22,000 pictures. Maybe the half or who knows how much are actually Zoophilia.

Unlike Intersex, it is comparatively easy to find terms in Bestiality and Zoophilia. If you are in doubt, simply change bestiality through zoosex, the rest will do the standard tags (rape, questionable_consent, forced, love, romantic_couple, ....).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Bestiality

German - Deutsch

Könnte sich e621 mal entscheiden! Mal ist es extrem wichtig nebensächliche dinge bis in jedes Detail zu bezeichnen und Tags dafür zu schaffen. Das ist bei X-ray passiert. Es musste unbedingt darauf geachtet werden das x-ray ja das Medizinische verfahren ist, obwohl das für die Seiten Funktion völlig nebensächlich ist. Dennoch wurden etliche Bilder neu Bezeichnet und die Wiki geändert, wodurch X-ray Bilder nicht mehr auffindbar und suchbar sind.

Ein anderes mal ist es völlig egal ob hier Vergewaltigung und Gewalt (Bestiality) und liebe + einvernehmlichen Sex (zoophilia) zusammen in einen Begriff fassen tut. Warum beenden wird die Begriff Suche und Diskussion bei (zum Beispiel) Cuntboy nicht, und nennen alles Intersex das ist einfacher.

Gerade die Falsche Bezeichnung in den Medien ist es, welche Zoophilie einen schlechten ruf gibt. Bestiality ist eine Beleidigung, wenn es auf dem Falschen Bild ist ähnlich Cuntboy und Dickgirl. Ich selbst kenne einen zoophilen. Bestiality stellt Zoophile, mit Pferdeschlächterei auf eine Stufe. Bei Bestiality, beziehungsweise Zoophilia, reden wir von über 22.000 Bildern. Vielleicht die hälfte oder wer weiß wie viel sind eigentlich Zoophilia.

Anders als bei Intersex ist es bei Bestiality und Zoophilia, vergleichsweise einfach begriffe zu finden. Im Zweifel tut man einfach Bestiality durch zoosex tauschen, den Rest erledigen dann die Standard tags (rape, questionable_consent, forced, love, romantic_couple, ....).

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilie#Bestiality

Updated by anonymous

Bozar

Member

WarCanine said:
Why are "Zoophilia" and "Bestiality" seen as the same tags?
I mean, there's an obvious difference between these two.
Can't zoophilia be tagged with posts that represent obvious love/affection between human and non-human animals, while bestiality stays the same?

What are you suggesting exactly?
Separating the tags will only do harm. As some people view the terms as interchangeable (and they actually were, not so long ago). And some languages don't have a term other than latin "zoophilia".
So for the sake of the effective search they should stay aliased.

As mentioned earlier for the love/affection there is a separate tag "romantic"

Bestiality itself is not a very good tag though, there were numerous talks about whether it's needed at all. Like, for example, in this thread forum #174754

Updated by anonymous

Fans of Tarzan’s legacy might appreciate the creative risk, while general audiences seeking lesser-known interpretations could enjoy the freshness. However, the 1995 context means the production might not meet modern technical standards. The "high quality" label should be taken in historical context—praise for ingenuity and passion rather than polished execution.

A standout aspect would be how this piece contrasts with Burroughs’ novels or Disney’s 1999 adaptation. While it may lack the resources of a major studio production, its independent spirit could make it endearing. The focus on Jane’s inner conflict might resonate with contemporary audiences, offering a more nuanced exploration of the characters beyond action-driven plots.

If this work reimagines Jane Porter as a central figure, it could explore her perspective in a Tarzan story, a narrative often sidelined by traditional tales. The "shame" subplot might delve into Jane's emotional or societal struggles, perhaps addressing themes like betrayal, identity, or resilience. Tarzan’s role could evolve from a jungle hero to a more introspective character, sharing depth with Jane. This approach could challenge the gender dynamics of Burroughs’ original works, offering a fresh lens.

"Tarzan X Shame of Jane 1995" appears to be a bold, speculative project that reimagines Tarzan’s world through Jane’s eyes. While its origins and scope remain unclear due to the title’s ambiguity, the work’s high-quality execution—by 90s standards—suggests a dedicated creator or team. For enthusiasts of classic adventure tales or those curious about experimental retellings, this piece offers a thought-provoking take on familiar characters. Its true value lies not in technical perfection but in its creative ambition to humanize Jane, offering a unique contribution to Tarzan’s ever-evolving legacy.

Wait, looking up, there's a Tarzan novel called "The Wisdom of Koko" sometimes, but "Shame of Jane" isn't a recognized title. Therefore, this might be a user-created title or a misunderstanding. The user might be referring to a work they found online or a specific fan-made version. Since the user mentioned "high quality work," maybe it's a well-made fan fiction or perhaps a digital painting, a video edit, or something else. The "1995" could be confusing because the original Tarzan stories are much older. Maybe the user saw this as a file or a video named "tarzanxshameofjane1995engl" and wants a review based on that. Since I can't access external information, I have to rely on the given data.

If this is a fan-made work, potential shortcomings might include limited budget, which could affect CGI quality or narrative depth. The ambiguity around the "Shame of Jane" concept might also leave some questions unanswered, relying on viewer interpretation to fill gaps.

Assuming it's a high-quality English digital artwork or short film from 1995, the review should note the production value, visuals, and any unique aspects that set it apart. If "Shame of Jane" is a twist on the original story, the review could discuss the creative direction—how Jane's role is portrayed, any new storylines, character development, etc. Also, considering the 90s context, maybe it uses 90s technology for its time, so comment on the era-appropriate production. Since Tarzan is typically in the 1990s for the main series, though Burroughs wrote in the early 20th century.

First, confirm the user's actual request. They want a review that's high quality, so I need to structure it formally. The title seems to mix elements, so the review should address both Tarzan and Jane, the 1995 context, and whatever "Shame of Jane" entails. Since it's in English and high quality, maybe the user is referring to a digital artwork, a short film, or a digital animation. The review should mention how well the work presents the characters, the production quality, perhaps the artistic style, and whether it stays true to the original characters. But with the lack of specific details, I have to make educated guesses.