The Jungle Book

Chlidonias said:
interestingly, this new Disney Jungle Book is coming out next year, and then in 2017 there will be Warner Bros' Jungle Book: Origins which will be motion-capture with (of course, sigh) Andy Serkis among others. Do we really need two reboots of the same story from two different studios?
Click to expand...

I heard about that. We probably don't but the story's public domain so we could get endless amounts of reboots to the story if people really wanted to make them. Unfortunately, even if Andy's movie is superior to Disney's, it'll likely suffer quite a bit at the box office since it's coming out so soon after another reboot.

~Thylo:cool:
 
ThylacineAlive said:
I heard about that. We probably don't but the story's public domain so we could get endless amounts of reboots to the story if people really wanted to make them. Unfortunately, even if Andy's movie is superior to Disney's, it'll likely suffer quite a bit at the box office since it's coming out so soon after another reboot.

~Thylo:cool:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't see it working out well for WB. I figure the performance of the Disney one will probably affect how they release it. If it's successful, WB might push back the release of their version out of fear that people won't be interested in seeing another telling of the same story. (but at the same time, they could also promote the movie even more, thinking that the popularity of the Disney one will encourage more people to see theirs) If it's not successful, WB might be afraid that their version will fail so they'll cut down on marketing and the like.

The WB version miiiight have a shot if it's very different from the Disney one. I think the Disney is based off the old Disney animated film while the WB one looks like it might be closer to the book. (the animated version was nothing like the book. I think Walt Disney even discouraged the people working on the film from reading the book) But the marketing would have to establish that it's a different story with a different tone, which might be hard to get across.
 
I think WB's movie has a much better shot if Disney's turns out great. That way people will be left with the memory of loving a Jungle Book movie.

While it's a bit different since these two movie follow the same story, I've heard the argument go for comic book movies. Marvel wants DC's Batman v Superman movie to be great so people will see the marketing for their Civil War and remember how much fun they last had watching a comic book movie.

Of course, the scenarios could be very different with these both being Jungle Book movies.

~Thylo:cool:
 
Chlidonias said:
interestingly, this new Disney Jungle Book is coming out next year, and then in 2017 there will be Warner Bros' Jungle Book: Origins which will be motion-capture with (of course, sigh) Andy Serkis among others. Do we really need two reboots of the same story from two different studios?
Click to expand...

No, we don't even need this one.
 
Disney's last live action remake from 1994 was fantastic I thought. Just really beautiful scenery and well filmed. (Yes there were ring tail lemurs and a brown bear, but still). This one could be interesting, although it seems to be much more suspenseful and a bit darker than the last (based on the one clip). The 1994 and the original 1967 animated were unquestionable family films but this one seems it may not be appropriate for very small children?
 
My mom had seen the trailer and when I got home from work she told me about them "live" Jungle Book movie that was going to be made. I found the trailer on YouTube and realized pretty quickly that it wasn't live but rather animated. I don't think I was able to accurately explain the difference between "cartoon" animation and the kind lime the Jungle Book and I think she's still convinced it's going to have actual people and animals in it, no matter how many times I tried to explain animals wouldn't do what a lot of them were doing in the movie. I'm impressed, however, with what I saw.
 
Arizona Docent said:
In the trailer, there is a closeup shot of the black leopard at the end that is clearly a real leopard. So I think the animals will be a mix of real and CGI (but perhaps mostly the latter).
Click to expand...
actually it is clearly a CGI leopard.

The only real element in the movie is the boy. Literally everything else was created on a computer.
 
My thoughts:

You think King Louie got a case of gigantism? I am actually very happy that they made him a Gigantopithecus. It solves the orangutan problem, and makes him an even more "kingly" creature (Gigantopithecus are the largest primate species after all). What I want to know is why there are there gibbons big enough to carry Mowgli on their backs and swing with him in their feet. Mowgli is 10-years old and he was born in a third world country, so he is small, but he's not that small.

Kaa becoming a female actually makes sense to me. I've found in that almost all of the largest pythons such as Medusa of Full Moon Productions Inc., Fluffy of Columbus Zoo, Samantha of the Bronx Zoo, and an 18-foot python found in the Everglades that was the biggest one to be discovered there was female, and Kaa as we all know is huge for a python.

I just hope that the wolves make a bigger appearance than they did in 1967. At least Mowgli's wolf brothers will appear to make an appearance due to them having voice actors.

If there is one question I have it's will Hathi get a V-actor? And will he be changed? If Disney can make Kaa female and King Louie a towering monstrosity of primate, they should make Hathi closer to his book self. In the actual books, Hathi is huge for an Indian elephant, almost mastodon or mammoth like in appearance and physique. He had huge tusks and actually hated man because he was almost hunted and fell down a spike-trap resulting in scars all across his body. He is the only animal that Shere Khan is afraid of also. That is the Hahti I think many people would want. In the 1967 movie, he just gives elephants a really bad name.

I do not know as to why two jungle books will come out so recently apart from one another. But to be honest, if there is one movie that Andy Serkis was born to be in let alone have a directorial debut, it would be a Live-action Jungle Book.
 
Last edited:
Chlidonias said:
actually it is clearly a CGI leopard.

The only real element in the movie is the boy. Literally everything else was created on a computer.
Click to expand...

That is really impressive. Looking back at the short clip of the leopard (1:24 mark) I can see when I freeze it that maybe it is CGI, but boy they do a good job!
 
Loxodonta Cobra said:
My thoughts:

You think King Louie got a case of gigantism? I am actually very happy that they made him a Gigantopithecus. It solves the orangutan problem, and makes him an even more "kingly" creature (Gigantopithecus are the largest primate species after all). What I want to know is why there are there gibbons big enough to carry Mowgli on their backs and swing with him in their feet. Mowgli is 10-years old and he was born in a third world country, so he is small, but he's not that small.

Kaa becoming a female actually makes sense to me. I've found in that almost all of the largest pythons such as Medusa of Full Moon Productions Inc., Fluffy of Columbus Zoo, Samantha of the Bronx Zoo, and an 18-foot python found in the Everglades that was the biggest one to be discovered there, and Kaa as we al know is huge for a python.

I just hope that the wolves make a bigger appearance than they did in 1967. At least Mowgli's wolf brothers will appear to make an appearance due to them having voice actors.

If there is one question I have it's will Hathi get a V-actor? And will he be changed? If Disney can make Kaa female and King Louie a towering monstrosity of primate, they should make Hathi closer to his book self. In the actual books, Hathi is huge for an Indian elephant, almost mastodon or mammoth like in appearance and physique. He had huge tusks and actually hated man because he was almost hunted and fell down a spike-trap resulting in scars all across his body. He is the only animal that Shere Khan is afraid of also. That is the Hahti I think many people would want. In the 1967 movie, he just gives elephants a really bad name.

I do not know as to why two jungle books will come out so recently apart from one another. But to be honest, if there is one movie that Andy Serkis was born to be in let alone have a directorial debut, it would be a Live-action Jungle Book.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I like making King Louie a gigantopithecus. In addition to my bias of loving prehistoric animals, making him this big creature that seems like something out of a legend (even if it actually existed) helps to make him seem more regal and powerful. I mean, if I were a gibbon looking for a leader, I'd probably be down for worshiping the giant orangutan.

As for why two different movies are coming out... Probably just an accident. It happens from time to time, two similar works independent of each other come out around the same time, resulting in a lot of comparisons between the two and usually causing one of the movies to lose out. Sometimes you do see one studio making a similar film to another one in an attempt to ride the popularity, (or in the case of DreamWorks animation during the 2000's, try to compete) but I don't think that's happening here.
 
Loxodonta Cobra said:
My thoughts:

You think King Louie got a case of gigantism? I am actually very happy that they made him a Gigantopithecus. It solves the orangutan problem, and makes him an even more "kingly" creature (Gigantopithecus are the largest primate species after all). What I want to know is why there are there gibbons big enough to carry Mowgli on their backs and swing with him in their feet. Mowgli is 10-years old and he was born in a third world country, so he is small, but he's not that small.

...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I get the relevance of this? :confused:

(Also an extremely pedantic note here that I wouldn't usually point out just on its own, but Gigantopithecus is a genus, not a species)
 
Btw a Gigantopithecus species from India (G. giganteus) is believed to be a smallest in the genus, not much larger than extant apes.
Loxodonta Cobra said:
What I want to know is why there are there gibbons big enough to carry Mowgli on their backs and swing with him in their feet. Mowgli is 10-years old and he was born in a third world country, so he is small, but he's not that small.
Click to expand...
Neel Sethi is 10 years old, but his character is younger and smaller - so animals were scaled up.
 
Elephas Maximus said:
Btw a Gigantopithecus species from India (G. giganteus) is believed to be a smallest in the genus, not much larger than extant apes.

Neel Sethi is 10 years old, but his character is younger and smaller - so animals were scaled up.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, well still it solves the King Louie species problem.
 
the solution would have been to get rid of King Louie. He was an invention of the Disney cartoon. Making him an extinct ape doesn't "solve" the problem, it just creates a new one.
 
Chlidonias said:
the solution would have been to get rid of King Louie. He was an invention of the Disney cartoon. Making him an extinct ape doesn't "solve" the problem, it just creates a new one.
Click to expand...

That's the solution that we and many others would want, but what about the kids and die-hard Disney Jungle Book fans? After Mowgli and Baloo, King Louie is perhaps the most loved Jungle Book character in the Disney franchise. It wouldn't be a Disney Jungle Book without him to many audience members, heck it wouldn't even be a Jungle Book to some who have never even read the actual book or seen any other Jungle Book version.
 
I don't usually like showing children film adaptations of children classics. Classic children books have second level which children absorb. Some will sit in child for years, and only 10 in 20 years later the child will understand the lesson it read. Films usually destroy this part.

Jungle Book is famous not because it is about talking animals - there are hundreds of stories about children and talking animals. It is a book about maturity, responsibility, and especially about colonialism.

I especially feel my sons should read how Mowgli gets on with animals in the original book. While his adopted wolf mother and Bagheera love Mowgli, other jungle animals do not. Animals in the original book are serious adult predators, and they want Mowgli to be responsible, cautious and mature like them. Mowgli at first rejects it, he is only a little child, naturally. He seeks friendship of crazied monkeys, and puts himself in grave danger because the monkeys kidnap him. Then Mowgli realizes his error, starts thinking and remembering what he has reluctantly learned, and requests help from Chil the kite. Then he calms venomous cobras when he is thrown into a pit in ruined house, and finally makes peace with Bagheera and Baloo, and also makes friends with the python Kaa who also comes to the rescue. This story shows that a child who uses forethought and sincere friendship can get respect and help from adults. Mowgli also learns the important lesson: he is weaker than animals, but is not worthless at all. To match, he has own skills which animals don't. He can resist Kaa's hypnotic gaze. Later Mowgli explores his skills and finds that he is not just average, but actually the most powerful one in the jungle. He does not match animals' strength or senses, but uses fire to defeat Shere Khan the tiger. There are really few books which show children how to get on with adults in adult terms. Disney film destroyed this with procession of stupid animals: jappa-pa-pa bear, dancing orangutan, comical elephants and stupid python. Like most children stories, the film just shows artificial, stupid versions of adults behaving like small children.

Reducing it all to action and talking animals feels like cheating the viewers. Children will see the movie, think "I know The Jungle Book" and not know they missed everything.
 
Chlidonias said:
the solution would have been to get rid of King Louie. He was an invention of the Disney cartoon. Making him an extinct ape doesn't "solve" the problem, it just creates a new one.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this movie is supposed to be an adaptation of the Disney animated film, not the book. The animated film was nothing like the original stories, apparently Walt Disney even discouraged the writers and animators from reading the actual stories because he wanted it to be more of an original movie. Right now Disney is on a big kick of "lets do live-action adaptations of our classic animated films". There's even a Dumbo one on the way, I'm quite surprised that a Lion King one hasn't been announced.
 
Jurek7 said:
I don't usually like showing children film adaptations of children classics. Classic children books have second level which children absorb. Some will sit in child for years, and only 10 in 20 years later the child will understand the lesson it read. Films usually destroy this part.

Jungle Book is famous not because it is about talking animals - there are hundreds of stories about children and talking animals. It is a book about maturity, responsibility, and especially about colonialism.

I especially feel my sons should read how Mowgli gets on with animals in the original book. While his adopted wolf mother and Bagheera love Mowgli, other jungle animals do not. Animals in the original book are serious adult predators, and they want Mowgli to be responsible, cautious and mature like them. Mowgli at first rejects it, he is only a little child, naturally. He seeks friendship of crazied monkeys, and puts himself in grave danger because the monkeys kidnap him. Then Mowgli realizes his error, starts thinking and remembering what he has reluctantly learned, and requests help from Chil the kite. Then he calms venomous cobras when he is thrown into a pit in ruined house, and finally makes peace with Bagheera and Baloo, and also makes friends with the python Kaa who also comes to the rescue. This story shows that a child who uses forethought and sincere friendship can get respect and help from adults. Mowgli also learns the important lesson: he is weaker than animals, but is not worthless at all. To match, he has own skills which animals don't. He can resist Kaa's hypnotic gaze. Later Mowgli explores his skills and finds that he is not just average, but actually the most powerful one in the jungle. He does not match animals' strength or senses, but uses fire to defeat Shere Khan the tiger. There are really few books which show children how to get on with adults in adult terms. Disney film destroyed this with procession of stupid animals: jappa-pa-pa bear, dancing orangutan, comical elephants and stupid python. Like most children stories, the film just shows artificial, stupid versions of adults behaving like small children.

Reducing it all to action and talking animals feels like cheating the viewers. Children will see the movie, think "I know The Jungle Book" and not know they missed everything.
Click to expand...

Well, I have a complete different sight. I grew up with the animated version of Jungle Book. It was the first movie I have seen in a cinema theater. And guess what, it does not change my view about animals. I have never thought that animals can "speak", all tigers are bad (in fact, its my favourite animal), pythons are stupid or anything like that.

And about the songs: Well, tastes are different. But it is a fact that the songs of the animated Jungle Book are the most popular from any other animated movie in the world.

Maybe the solution is to sometimes let yourself to be enchanted, to see and feel like a child. And as millions of fans around the world proove, Disney knows how that works...(That doesn't mean I would not suggest to read Kiplings original version too).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top