DVDizzy Forum

Jungle Book has been pushed to April 15, 2016

http://www.stitchkingdom.com/disney-pet ... hed-74045/

Jungle Book has been pushed to April 15, 2016

http://www.stitchkingdom.com/disney-pet ... hed-74045/

Lady Cluck wrote:

I have to admit even though I'm not keen on these movies getting live action reboots, that's a pretty nice poster.

That's a really good poster.

I like it too. I hope the art direction in the film is similar to that, and the CGI animals don't look too weird.

Like the Beauty and the Beast adaptation, this project strikes me as especially unnecessary. All the characters are going to be CGI (save for Mowgli) and it's going to feature the original's songs. I just don't see the point when the 1967 animated film exists. At least Maleficent was a different take on Sleeping Beauty, however mediocre.

This is one of the only live-action remakes I'm actually looking forward to. The poster looks beautiful, I wish we could see the trailer or some stills.

That poster was really good.

To be honest, there's been enough remakes of "The Jungle Book". If they'll really wanted to make another one, they could do an adaptation which would be closer to the book. At least the original nove lhas enough plot and drama to expand.

Dwayne Johnson is now attached to star.

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/dwayn ... 201573791/

Disneyphile wrote:Dwayne Johnson is now attached to star.

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/dwayn ... 201573791/

... in 'Jungle Cruise'. This is 'The Jungle Book'.

That is a nice poster. I'm surprised Disney can still make decent marketing material. It actually makes me slightly interested in seeing this, though I will ultimately use the trailer to decide whether to watch or not. (And even then, I'll probably wait for the discount theater run or BD release, though I'd definitely reconsider if critical and audience reception is somehow through the roof.)

Disney teases first look on Monday.

http://comicbook.com/2015/09/12/disney- ... ng-monday/

That was gorgeous.

Looked too fake. I think the Disney live action movies suffer from CGI that appears to be too blurry.

I really hope that this movie knocks it out of the park.... But I'm not really looking forward to it.
The Jungle Book is one of my least favorite Disney movies, I do however have a lot of respect for it because of Kaa and Shere Khan.

taei wrote:The Jungle Book is one of my least favorite Disney movies, I do however have a lot of respect for it because of Kaa and Shere Khan.

"The Jungle Book" was one of the first Disney films which I truly loved, besides "Dumbo". I was obsessed by it and saw it several times. I still find it to be a very cute and enjoyable film with good characters. But the execution of the screenplay is fairly weak and poorly executed. I know there are several people who disagrees on me with this, but the execution could've been better.

I rewatched JB recently, and I agree. I think they undersold the heart in the screenplay. I loved Baloo and Mowgli's relationship and the conflict that comes out of it (Baloo is still probably my favorite pre-90s Disney character), but I still think that that could have been explored deeper, especially on Mowgli's side of things. This film is a good opportunity to explore Mowgli's connection to the jungle and its inhabitants in a deeper way than "I'm a stubborn, whiny little kid who wants to play in the jungle all day".

It also always bothered me that Mowgli had barely any emotional reaction to losing his wolf-parents. Even watching the film as a kid I felt like Mowgli was poorly portrayed.

Tangled wrote:I rewatched JB recently, and I agree. I think they undersold the heart in the screenplay.

"The Jungle Book" had an interesting premise that was executed poorly. What could've been a intriguing plot ended up being just a simple road movie without tapping deep into the characters. The film is about taking Mowgli back to the man village because of his safety. But Mowgli never realizes this and actually is even more motivated to stay in the jungle by meeting all these different characters. Quite ironic, actually. Mowgli gets to the man village at the end, but the film never concludes this in a compelling way. For all the flaws of the sequel, at least it gives Mowgli depth and makes him torn between the man village and the jungle. The screenplay of the sequel is superior, hence it continues the story and gives it a compelling dilemma.

I loved Baloo and Mowgli's relationship and the conflict that comes out of it (Baloo is still probably my favorite pre-90s Disney character)

Agreed. For some reason I liked Bagheera and Mowgli priorly, but Baloo is more endearing and likeable.

but I still think that that could have been explored deeper, especially on Mowgli's side of things. This film is a good opportunity to explore Mowgli's connection to the jungle and its inhabitants in a deeper way than "I'm a stubborn, whiny little kid who wants to play in the jungle all day".
It also always bothered me that Mowgli had barely any emotional reaction to losing his wolf-parents. Even watching the film as a kid I felt like Mowgli was poorly portrayed.

Yeah, but even more startling is that the wolf clan never explained to him priorly (hence it's understandable, since it would've reduced the chance for him to actually leave, but it would've been difficult anyway, since he rebelled against Bagheera). It's also baffling they don't even appear or barely gets mentioned in the sequel. But honestly, wouldn't a large clan of wolves be able to defeat a tiger? It's understandable why they sent him back due to Shere Khan, but still.

And while Mowgli acts like a impetuous brat, at least it's understandable why he won't go to the man village. He's being forced from the only home he's ever known. So his rebellion is understandable.

I think The Jungle Book is definitely a good film but probably one of the weaker animated feature films made under Walt's watch. The songs are good, the character animation is outstanding and it has some gorgeous backgrounds. Not to mention, Shere Khan is easily one of Disney's best villains, even if he doesn't even appear on screen until the final act; the sheer power of his name signifies his might. However, the story is pretty episodic and a bit flimsy, and while the characters are fun, some of them lack much depth (Mowgli) or aren't given enough screen time and thus aren't developed enough (the wolves). Whatever the case may be, I can understand why it is as beloved as it is, and I don't mind re-watching it occasionally.

Anyway, I quite like the look of this film. I can understand some of the criticism going against it, particularly as to why remake an animated film in live-action when it's going to use computer animation to create most of the characters. That said, it looks like a sincere effort to retell a classic story and doesn't have the petty fan-fiction element that Maleficent or Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland had. It also interests me more than the Pete's Dragon remake, which I feel is a bit of an odd choice for a remake in a number of regards. Are they really using the original Sherman Brothers songs, though?

Ouch, the CGI looks terrible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbUGHs8I4l0