The Jungle Book (Post-release)

In an interview with director, Favreau, he stated that they took great pains to limit the animal facial expressions to what the actual animal can do. I know exactly what he means. There's always a temptation to reflect strong vocal performances through more humanlike facial expressions - either broadening a smile or raising eyebrows. But, when CGI animals are made to emote like humans they start to distance themselves from the creatures they're trying to represent. This is not necessarily a wrong move but it's what we've come to expect from any film that animates talking animals.

I defy anyone to isolate a still photo where an animal has human expression. Favreau's choice to keep the animals looking like animals is a brilliant move because it heightens the sense of reality and contributes to making the film emotionally engaging.
 
This really is the first film I've ever seen that has me question the distinction between live-action and animated movies.

I don't typically want sequels but this one seems ripe for sequel material. Among other things I want to see more of Raksha and more stuff with the elephants. I love the setting and the characters. I do want more.
 
I never cared much for the animated film, but I loved the live action. The visuals, animal characterizations, and storytelling were all top notch. Just mind-blowing that most of this was green screen. Watching this made me want to go join a wolf pack and adopt a bear :lol I found this to be a better story overall than the animated, as I really didn't like the ending in the animated. Very much looking forward to Disney's sequel. And WB might as well cancel their own Jungle Book, no way they're topping this.

Some people told me to see this in 3D and that's what I saw, very well done and adds to the experience. I almost always hate 3D but for this film it was wonderfully executed. The experience wasn't as immersive as Avatar but I'd say one of the best 3D films I've seen.
 
I never cared much for the animated film, but I loved the live action. The visuals, animal characterizations, and storytelling were all top notch. Just mind-blowing that most of this was green screen. Watching this made me want to go join a wolf pack and adopt a bear :lol I found this to be a better story overall than the animated, as I really didn't like the ending in the animated. Very much looking forward to Disney's sequel. And WB might as well cancel their own Jungle Book, no way they're topping this.

Some people told me to see this in 3D and that's what I saw, very well done and adds to the experience. I almost always hate 3D but for this film it was wonderfully executed. The experience wasn't as immersive as Avatar but I'd say one of the best 3D films I've seen.

WB is doing a jungle book too? :confused
 
WB is doing a jungle book too? :confused
Andy Serkis's Jungle Book: Origins
all performances are mo-cap.
Favreau's film, if anything, showed us actually that restraint from the tendency of over-anthropomorphizing animals makes things seem more real. The WB movie which is all about mo-cap (and therefore anthropomorphizing animals) is going to lead to something that's probably a lot more cartoony. WB moved release date to 2018 to create some distance from the Disney film. It doesn't look good for that project.
 
Andy Serkis's Jungle Book: Origins
all performances are mo-cap.
Favreau's film, if anything, showed us actually that restraint from the tendency of over-anthropomorphizing animals makes things seem more real. The WB movie which is all about mo-cap (and therefore anthropomorphizing animals) is going to lead to something that's probably a lot more cartoony. WB moved release date to 2018 to create some distance from the Disney film. It doesn't look good for that project.
I never understood why studios release similiar films so close together. It was like that a lot during the mid 90's - early 2000's. One is CLEARLY better than the other too. And they are plugging it as an Andy Serkis movie? Thats interesting. Yeah, I can imagine that, I havent seen the Jungle Book yet, but I might. Im not a fan of CG overload though, so Im kind of skeptical. All of you have been saying how great it is though, so I might see it in theaters. If it sucks, Im going to demand money from all of you. I accept paypal :D
 
Im not a fan of CG overload though, so Im kind of skeptical. All of you have been saying how great it is though, so I might see it in theaters. If it sucks, Im going to demand money from all of you. I accept paypal :D

Not sure if you saw my post, but except for when the animals were talking, I had troubles telling if it was CG or not.
 
Scarlett Johansson torches up "Trust in Me."

It was played in the end credits. My wife didn't understand why I couldn't leave my seat. :rolleyes

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure if you saw my post, but except for when the animals were talking, I had troubles telling if it was CG or not.

Oops. I missed it. Oh man. Thats quite a statement. I might have to go see it then, the only bummer is that nobody I know else wants to! :cry
dascoyne - I swear man, that sultry voice of hers gets me every time!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The previews made me not want to see it, but I did and really enjoyed it.

You could feel Favreau's attention to detail.
 
Dang didn't stay for the end credits. Will have to go see it in 3D then.
I cannot believe it was all 3D. How about the part where Mogli gets sprayed in the face with water while in the river. There are a few water scenes like that. I think the human body interacting with water seamlessly is what convinced me. That was well done.
 
This was def a new batch mark in CGI for me, I was absolutely blown away with what they did in the this film.....a must see and I took my 5yr old and she was fine with it, only one big jump moment but not scary

Seriously amazing artistry from the CGI team
 
Bit late to the party as i just seen this and bit surprised that compared to other threads this sitn discussed as much.

The cgi was def some of the best out there and was just amazing. Mowgli for a kid actor actually did rather good. Great movie that could have been even better with few changes to the voice actors. My biggest let downs were kaa and king louie who both just dint seem to fit the respective role. It was something i was concerned with when seeing the trailers and unfortenatly it hasnt changed my opinion.

Seems like they recycled quite a few marvel characters for this one :p (some better then others ofc)
 
I just got the Blu-Ray and watched it again.

I love the scene where Bagheera tells Mowgli to fight Shere-Khan like a man.
Shere-Khan runs after Mowgli then Bahgeera, like a badass, chases the tiger, overtakes and tackles him. The tracking shot of the chase is great.
 
Just got through Netflixing this and I really enjoyed it. Dang, I did not catch that cowbell reference until I read this thread.

Of all the Disney animated classics, the original was not one of my favorites, not really sure why, though. I remember seeing it in a theater as a little kid and the next day going around the playground and (wrongly) telling everyone it was a movie about Tarzan when he was a kid.

Here's my only nitpick (and I will admit it is a very stupid nitpick, but this bothered me even as a little kid). I have absolutely no quabble with talking animals and I am certainly no jungle expert, but I've never heard of bears and wolves living in the same jungle with tigers, monkeys and elephants. I know I know, it's a fantasy--just go with it, and trust me I CAN go along with it, but like I said, even as a kid that seemed odd to me.

The cgi in this film is amazing. I could have done without the King Louie song. One song was enough. Even as a little tyke I never really cared for all the singing in the Disney movies--just get on with the story.

I really think The Lion King could be done very well this way (sans songs)--really looking forward to that one.
 
Here's my only nitpick (and I will admit it is a very stupid nitpick, but this bothered me even as a little kid). I have absolutely no quabble with talking animals and I am certainly no jungle expert, but I've never heard of bears and wolves living in the same jungle with tigers, monkeys and elephants. I know I know, it's a fantasy--just go with it, and trust me I CAN go along with it, but like I said, even as a kid that seemed odd to me.

According to Wikipedia, Seoni, in the Madhya Pradesh state of India, is the setting for The Jungle Book. The books aren't entirely accurate (the forests aren't rain forests, while they are in the books), but let's look at the animals that can be found there:

Wolves - Mowgli's adopted family is called the "Seeonee pack" in the books (a misspelling of Seoni), and Wikipedia lists wolves as being in Madhya Pradesh, and as a "forest-dwelling animal."

Bagheera - Bagheera is a melanistic Indian leopard. Madhya Pradesh actually has the largest Indian leopard population in the country.

Baloo - Baloo in the books is described as "the sleepy brown bear." There are three species of bear in India, but neither the brown nor Asian black bear are found in Seoni. However, the sloth bear is, and other than color, Baloo's depiction seems to match the sloth bear. Furthermore, though this movie has his appearance closer to a Himalayan brown bear, Bagheera refers to him as a sloth bear. Wikipedia also notes that though there are no historical records, brown bears may have ranged across most of northern India at some point.

Shere Khan - Shere Khan is, obviously, a Bengal tiger, and being the national animal of India, is pretty spread out across the country (at least the southern portions). It seems like they're found in just about every type of forest in India, as well.

King Louie - King Louie is an interesting case, as he is not a character from the books, and instead created for the original animated movie. In the animated movie, he was a Bornean orangutan, which is native of Borneo (obviously, from the name), and are not found in India. The live action version, on the other hand, made him into a Gigantopithecus, which, while found in India, went extinct at least 100,000 years ago. Still, other prehistoric creatures have been found to still exist, so it's an easier stretch of the imagination that a giant monkey could have also existed.

Now, there are monkeys in the books, they just don't have a leader like Louie. They're referred to as the "Bandar-log" (monkey people). In is version of the movie, they are macaques, langurs, and Indian gibbons. All of these are found in India.

Kaa - Kaa is an Indian rock python, which are found all over India

Elephants - The elephants in the book are Asian elephants, most likely specifically the Indian elephant subspecies, which is found all over India, both in grasslands and in forests.


I think that covers all of the main species in the movie/book? Kipling lived in India as a child (and was also born there), and later lived there for 6 1/2 years as an adult, and had a friend who helped with the animals. The original Disney cartoon seemed to have played loose and fast, but for this one, they did the research, and other than Louie, everything seems to line up with what could be found there.
 
Caught it on Netflix, liked it a lot! I knew Walken was Louie, and once I saw the cowbell I LOST IT :lol I think my only nitpick was when Bagheera found Mowgli he was in the cave and his dad was killed. But they keep telling him he was abandoned and left out there? Did they know that Shere Khan killed his dad and didn't want him to know? Other than that, it was pretty solid. Loved the animals at the truce rock, I couldn't tell what was real or not, gives me hope for Lion King :thumbsup
 
Back
Top