DVDizzy Forum

Yeah the animals look very cartoony. Shere Khan lacks any form of menace, especially compared to Disney's rendition. Hard to accept it as a darker and grittier take.

Shere Kahn scares the crap out of me in that trailer. It looks good. But I agree the animals look cartoony. Is it because they had a smaller budget than Disney's? I feel bad for Warner Bros. Making this film after Disney made a hit with their own. So much looking like a copycat they had to change the name. And if this didn't stop Warner Bros. from making their own version of The Jungle Book, why did Disney's Cinderella stop them from making their own version of Cinderella which they were planning to do?

JeanGreyForever wrote: The animated Jungle Book had an alternate ending where Mowgli returns to the village and is adopted but is hated by a hunter named Buldeo. Buldeo forces him back into the jungle to find some treasure and Mowgli ends up tricking him into being eaten by Shere Khan.

As in the one Walt Disney made?... dang that's.....dark....very dark.


Now, with this new Mogwli, they used motion capture for the characters. Watched this where the director the king of motion capture himself, Andy Serkis explains more about the characters. After watching this, I realized how different this film will be. Points out how differ this will be from the Disney version (No King Louie, he's create by Disney etc.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGa9j4vucFc

D82 wrote:Have you guys seen the trailer of the Warner Bros. adaptation of The Jungle Book? They said it was going to be darker and more realistic than the Disney film, so it surprised me that the animal characters looked more cartoonish than the ones from Disney.

Well, even dramas can have cartoony looking animals (*cough, The Good Dinosaur, cough*)

I didn't find their designs to be that cartoony. Perhaps there was a certain cartoon factor to Shere Khan, Kaa and the Wolves, but not as much as I thought.

I'm surprised that Warner Bros are heading for this movie, only two years after Jon Favreau's one. But the story isn't just copyright to Disney, anyways.

DisneyFan09 wrote:Well, even dramas can have cartoony looking animals (*cough, The Good Dinosaur, cough*)

Yes, it's just that I imagined they would be quite different. Usually, when they want to make something darker, they make it more realistic-looking. In the video disneyboy20022 posted, Andy Serkis says that to create the look of the animals they made a combination between the animal faces and the actors faces. I guess they did that so that the motion capture was more evident and so we could recognise the actors, but I think they look weird and a bit jarring next to the live-action footage. Though I guess they had to do something to differentiate their film from the Disney version visually as well. Anyway, the film itself doesn't look bad and it'll be interesting to see a different approach to the story.

This featurette offers a better look at some of the animal characters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjJ0j0Z3U2w

DisneyFan09 wrote:I'm surprised that Warner Bros are heading for this movie, only two years after Jon Favreau's one. But the story isn't just copyright to Disney, anyways.

Mowgli was filmed around the same time as Disney's The Jungle Book. It's only releasing this year, because a) Andy Serkis really wanted the special effects to be as perfect as possible and b) WB wanted more distance away from the Disney movie.

I'm curious to see how it does. Most comments I've seen online are asking "Wait? Didn't Disney just make this?", which is a little unfair to Serkis who is making a very different interpretation and more faithful adaptation of the book.

Disney Duster wrote:Shere Kahn scares the crap out of me in that trailer. It looks good. But I agree the animals look cartoony. Is it because they had a smaller budget than Disney's? I feel bad for Warner Bros. Making this film after Disney made a hit with their own. So much looking like a copycat they had to change the name. And if this didn't stop Warner Bros. from making their own version of The Jungle Book, why did Disney's Cinderella stop them from making their own version of Cinderella which they were planning to do?

It was Universal that had their own Cinderella movie in development. I don't know where the project is now, but it's probably not happening any time soon. I wish it was though! That's the only major Hollywood studio left that has yet to tackle the Cinderella story.

Oh, Universal. Thanks. Well who knows if they'll make it or not. Could be interesting, and who knows maybe even really good.

The Warner Bros. adaptation of The Jungle Book directed by Andy Serkis has been acquired by Netflix and will now premiere on streaming in 2019: https://deadline.com/2018/07/netflix-mo ... 202434903/

Maybe they felt it couldn't compete theatrically after the previous Jungle Book hence why it's going straight to streaming.

^Yes, that must be the reason.

Andy Serkis' Jungle Book movie got a release date, a new trailer, and a new name.

https://deadline.com/2018/11/mowgli-leg ... 202498205/

Andy Serkis' Jungle Book movie is getting bad reviews. Disney wins once again.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mowgli ... he_jungle/

Huh. And I had suspected it would be good. Well I'm glad Disney's is better.

I don't think ever need a sequel to Jon Favreau's Jungle Book. Not when this year's Lion King is clearly a spiritual follow up.

I think like Wakt did instead of making Snow White 2 he made a samiler movie in Cinderella.

I don’t know, I think I’d like to see more of this adaptation’s version of the characters. I wonder how similar TLK really will be to TJB.

Since Louis Prima’s estate sued The Disney Company after tale spin aso they couldn’t use King Louie in House of Mouse or The Jungle Book 2 with John Goodman,

How was Jon Feavuru able to use the character in his remake ?

Myown theory is that Christopher Walken voiced King Louie so definitely from Prima that both his voice and appearance had no remblence the animated version so that the estate couldn't or didn't bother to sue since Walkens’s Louise is basically completely different character with the same name.

Was the working title Truce? The clapperboard says "Truce:"
https://youtu.be/He-xViFnvRA?t=272

(I've heard of movie theaters getting films under fake names and of course working titles, but if it always was to be TJB, why does the clapperboard say that?)

^Most films use fake names during shooting to keep its production a secret, avoid attention from the locals and prevent leaks. For example, the code name used for The Little Mermaid remake was "Scallops". This is different from working titles that are used because the studio hasn't settled on a final name yet.

^ That makes sense! Thank you