The Jungle Book
- Thread starter ThylacineAlive
- Start date
Elephas Maximus
Well-Known Member
And the primates were enlarged just for purpose of Mowgli fitting on the back of a SINGLE gibbon which carries him upward the cliff side. Pretty much unneeded. It could have been filmed with realistically scaled monkeys (to extent that 10-11yo actor is small as 7yo) carrying Mowgli together at once. LIKE IN THE BOOK.
and even can stand upright!
And in fantasy, a human cub raised by animals doesn't become underdeveloped or mentally handicappedOr you could just realize this is all a story and meant to be fantasy
and even can stand upright!I loved it. The original Disney movie was my favourite when I was a boy and it came out and this is a great remake of that.
The surprise attention to detail and add in the extra animals and it was outstanding. It was still a Disney movie so needed to have a bit of fun for children too. The scale was a bit off in monkey temple but just trying to identify expvery type of primate there made it worth it.
Regarding Baloo hibernating, Bagheera explainec that when he comes and finds them. (Don't want any spoilers)
The surprise attention to detail and add in the extra animals and it was outstanding. It was still a Disney movie so needed to have a bit of fun for children too. The scale was a bit off in monkey temple but just trying to identify expvery type of primate there made it worth it.
Regarding Baloo hibernating, Bagheera explainec that when he comes and finds them. (Don't want any spoilers)
apparently the animators created "more than seventy animal species" for the movie. I get about twenty from the trailer. Would there really be another fifty throughout the movie?
I am going to have to watch it and try to count them all!
I am going to have to watch it and try to count them all!
i reckon there are close to a dozen primates in the monkey temple alone - at least pig-tailed, golden langur, silver langur, a couple of gibbons, lion, some doucs, a couple of other langurs, i think a couple of other macaques
pygmy hogs plus a bearded or warty or something
pretty much every type of deer and antelope from that region
civets, mongooses,
heaps of birds
reptiles, amphibians
attention to detail was amazing - my attention not so much - so need to wait to get it on blu ray - plus i saw it 3d which i don't really like but was desperate to see it straight away - will see it again before the run finishes
pygmy hogs plus a bearded or warty or something
pretty much every type of deer and antelope from that region
civets, mongooses,
heaps of birds
reptiles, amphibians
attention to detail was amazing - my attention not so much - so need to wait to get it on blu ray - plus i saw it 3d which i don't really like but was desperate to see it straight away - will see it again before the run finishes
TheDisneyTeen
Member
Would probably include spoilers.. but in which scene did that happen? I don't recall any moment in which the macaques were bigger though, probably because the macaques were closer to the "camera" which made them appear larger?
Found the number of species featured in the film to be impressive though, and pretty much all of them are intrinsically designed and detailed. Overall one of the most breathtaking, stunning uses of CGI to date.. definitely going to rewatch it once more (perhaps this time in 3D
) before the run ends.
Elephas Maximus
Well-Known Member
When Mowgli's escorted into the temple.
I've not seen this yet but planning to try to do so soon., The movie looks visually stunning but I'm worried about the story - the trailers seem to be leaning towards a high action/adventure approach, which I find a bit far from the 1967 film or the novel myself... but I've been wrong before! Is it like that?
I might see this film for a second time while it is still running (saw it on the 15th). Definitely buying it on my iTunes. All I can say is that it's now one of my favorite movies of all time.
TheDisneyTeen
Member
The 2016 film has a more prominent adventure element to it, a bulk of the film is directed towards Mowgli's survival in the jungle so the feel of this film is definitely darker than that of the 1967 film or book. The film does slow down at points, especially in the middle sections, but the survival/escape element is much more emphasized in the 2016 film. The mix of comic relief and suspense/thrill was executed well though.
I plan on seeing it this weekend, I need an excuse to get out of the house (I haven't been anywhere in a while...) and my sister wants to see it. If nothing else, I'm sure I'll enjoy the visuals, but I'll post my opinions when I see it.
Side note, I should see if the original movie is on Netflix or something. When I was a kid, our tape had something wrong with it so when it got close to the ending, it skipped and then went to the credits. All I saw was him spying on the chick, I've never seen the full ending, ha ha.
Side note, I should see if the original movie is on Netflix or something. When I was a kid, our tape had something wrong with it so when it got close to the ending, it skipped and then went to the credits. All I saw was him spying on the chick, I've never seen the full ending, ha ha.
I saw the movie last sunday. It is quite enjoyable. The animation is great of course, but we all expected that. Many indian animals are represented, so there is plenty for animal fans to see. This version retains elements of both R. Kipling´s book and the disney animation of 1967.
It is interesting that the wolf characters of the book which were barely shown in the animation return greatly in the new version. Wolves can now be shown as positive elements. The law of the jungle speech also returns here. Kaa the python is cast negatively, when in the book the snake is an ally of Mowgli. Herps still get no respect.There is a interesting discussion as to whether the representation of the monkeys in Kipling is colonialist ( they live in a temple and are not quite human) and Disney only made matters worse with King Louie who is suspected
to be a representation of Louie Armstrong. No orangutan is in Kipling´s work. But many film experts state that King Louie is actually named after the great Louis Prima, jazz vocalist and composer ( who wrote Sing, Sing, Sing for Benny Goodman and Gene Krupa) who gave voice to King Louie. This time King Louie is a Gigantepictus, but Chris Walken still sings " I want to be like you". He does no justice to Louis Prima, of course.
Other than that the voices are great. Bill Murray is great.
The movie is very enjoyable and you can take your parents, grandparents, or kids, or your current soulmate. Have fun identifying all the animals and by the way which is the jerboa species in India ?
It is interesting that the wolf characters of the book which were barely shown in the animation return greatly in the new version. Wolves can now be shown as positive elements. The law of the jungle speech also returns here. Kaa the python is cast negatively, when in the book the snake is an ally of Mowgli. Herps still get no respect.There is a interesting discussion as to whether the representation of the monkeys in Kipling is colonialist ( they live in a temple and are not quite human) and Disney only made matters worse with King Louie who is suspected
to be a representation of Louie Armstrong. No orangutan is in Kipling´s work. But many film experts state that King Louie is actually named after the great Louis Prima, jazz vocalist and composer ( who wrote Sing, Sing, Sing for Benny Goodman and Gene Krupa) who gave voice to King Louie. This time King Louie is a Gigantepictus, but Chris Walken still sings " I want to be like you". He does no justice to Louis Prima, of course.
Other than that the voices are great. Bill Murray is great.
The movie is very enjoyable and you can take your parents, grandparents, or kids, or your current soulmate. Have fun identifying all the animals and by the way which is the jerboa species in India ?
Last edited:
Elephas Maximus
Well-Known Member
There are no jerboas in India. Those in the movie are long-eared jerboas from Mongolia & China.
See, Disney as usual can't go without misplaced wildlife.
Jungle Book 2 animated movie: ocelots & hippos
Jungle Cubs animated series: ostriches, lemurs, baboons, warthog etc.
Jungle Book: Mowgli's story (1998) - skunk, spotted hyena as Tabaqui the jackal, black bear as Baloo, chimps
Jungle Book: Mowgli & Baloo (1997) - black bear & chimps again; macaw, birdwings & toucan on DVD cover (unsure if in the movie aswell since not watched)
Jungle Book (1994) - black bear again; reticulated python as Kaa, macaques voiced with chimp sounds
Last edited:
Interesting. The adventure/escape route isn't one I'd have taken but I am open to seeing how it plays out when I see the movie.
Saw the movie. The animal animation is some of the best I've ever seen, if it wasn't for the expressive faces I could easily mistake some of them for real animals. As others have mentioned, there are a lot of different animal species in the movie and it is fun to identify them, even if the sizing is off for some species. (though for some of them, like Kaa, I chalk it up to the fantasy/adventure vibe the movie is going for) Also, there was a pangolin, and including a pangolin automatically gets a movie bonus points.
Very fun and enjoyable movie, I like that they made it different enough from the animated film so you're not just watching the same thing but in live action. I really like the adventure vibe they were going for as well as a lot of the darker changes that came with it. I especially like this movie's version of Kaa, that was just terrifying. The voice performances for all of the animals were fantastic! I don't really have any major complaints about the movie, just a few minor nitpicks, (King Louie's musical number feels very out of place) it's a very good film. Not groundbreaking or anything, but very enjoyable, I recommend it.
Very fun and enjoyable movie, I like that they made it different enough from the animated film so you're not just watching the same thing but in live action. I really like the adventure vibe they were going for as well as a lot of the darker changes that came with it. I especially like this movie's version of Kaa, that was just terrifying. The voice performances for all of the animals were fantastic! I don't really have any major complaints about the movie, just a few minor nitpicks, (King Louie's musical number feels very out of place) it's a very good film. Not groundbreaking or anything, but very enjoyable, I recommend it.
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
I finally saw this movie and enjoyed it. The CGI is great, and the young boy is a phenomenal actor to have given such a convincing performance.
The bear looked a whole lot like a Brown Bear, and was it necessary for the snake to have such a sultry voice (Scarlet Johanssen)? I'm nit picking a very enjoyable action adventure movie - rent it.
The bear looked a whole lot like a Brown Bear, and was it necessary for the snake to have such a sultry voice (Scarlet Johanssen)? I'm nit picking a very enjoyable action adventure movie - rent it.
the Cinema Sins version is up as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bXeeuPmJBY
I haven't seen the movie yet but it does seem like Cinema Sins was scoring sin-points on rubbish (lots of comments saying that). I didn't find it a fun video to watch, unlike most of the ones they do, partly because it just seemed petty and angry instead of amusing, and partly because there were loads of obvious mistakes in what he was using as sins.
However, a few things I noticed were that the CGI of the animals looked genuinely awful (they may have picked out shots which looked worst, because the common opinion is that the CGI in the movie is great, but still just really bad CGI in these clips), and the scaling of some of the animals was just bizarre - Bagheera was twice the size of blackbucks at the waterhole but then later Baloo was over twice Bagheera's size which would have made him about equal to an elephant.
I haven't seen the movie yet but it does seem like Cinema Sins was scoring sin-points on rubbish (lots of comments saying that). I didn't find it a fun video to watch, unlike most of the ones they do, partly because it just seemed petty and angry instead of amusing, and partly because there were loads of obvious mistakes in what he was using as sins.
However, a few things I noticed were that the CGI of the animals looked genuinely awful (they may have picked out shots which looked worst, because the common opinion is that the CGI in the movie is great, but still just really bad CGI in these clips), and the scaling of some of the animals was just bizarre - Bagheera was twice the size of blackbucks at the waterhole but then later Baloo was over twice Bagheera's size which would have made him about equal to an elephant.
Yeah I really wasn't impressed with that video. He obviously didn't like the movie and was just being overly nitpicky and harsh. Perfect example, he sinned the whole "elephants created the jungle" scene because the movie doesn't explain how they created the jungle. However, if you watched the movie you'd know they literally explain exactly how in the very next line of dialogue...
It especially didn't help that he got a lot of animal facts wrong, such as "African Tiger" and calling a Brahimny Kite a Bald Eagle (and then sinning that a Bald Eagle was in India...).
Shere Khan wasn't great CGI-wise in my opinion, and here and there there are some lesser bits but overall the CGI is incredible to me. Some of the sizing is off it seems.
~Thylo
zooboy28
Well-Known Member
I finally saw the Jungle Book a couple of weeks ago and loved it, the story is solid and the imagery brilliant. I think the CGI was amazing, among the very best I've ever seen (even the dog was watching, which she normally only does for penguin documentaries, but that may have been due to the animal noises rather than the graphics). The range of species featured is also impressive, and the trio of pangolin, giant squirrel and pygmy hog is brilliant. I wasn't expecting them all to get so much screen time.