The Jungle Book

[Magenta Panther]

I am soooooooooooooooo happy to report that The Jungle Book is a BEAST at the box office - it's blowing way past expectations, with an opening haul of 103 million. In its first weekend! And that's not even counting the box-office take from overseas!

So once again, Robert "Deep Pockets" Iger has been shown that Disney doesn't need Star Wars. It doesn't need Marvel. It sure as heck doesn't need the Muppets. All Disney needs is DISNEY. Yes, Walt and company didn't write "The Jungle Book". But they created an iconic animated version that has generated so much goodwill over the generations that it boosted its remake beyond the stratosphere.

Will we see a Jungle Book attraction in any of the parks? You kidding? For a genuine Disney-generated IP? HAAHAHAHA!! Nope, Iger's gotta save room and budget for his purchases, after all. We'll probably see the Jungle Book shoehorned into the Pooh ride and Christopher Robin's teddy booted for Baloo the bear.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I still can't get over the fact, the animals are 20 times normal size

I know! The first thing I thought of when I saw Mowgli and Bagheera together in the trailer was: "That panther's WAY too big". A real black leopard's not much bigger than a Labrador. But apparently the animals were all enlarged to emphasize how small and fragile Mowgli is by comparison, and to make the audience empathize with him more as a result.

 

[FigmentForver96]

I know! The first thing I thought of when I saw Mowgli and Bagheera together in the trailer was: "That panther's WAY too big". A real black leopard's not much bigger than a Labrador. But apparently the animals were all enlarged to emphasize how small and fragile Mowgli is by comparison, and to make the audience empathize with him more as a result.

The effect works too. The kid did very well.

 

[Phroobar]

So once again, Robert "Deep Pockets" Iger has been shown that Disney doesn't need Star Wars. It doesn't need Marvel. It sure as heck doesn't need the Muppets. All Disney needs is DISNEY.

Sure but TWO BILLION dollars in box office doesn't hurt.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Having now seen the movie I think I understand why I enjoyed both this and the Cinderella remake as much as I did. Both film's represent a more adult approach to the same Disney subject matter without sacrificing the family appropriate nature of their stories. What makes these films "mature" is their respect for their sources (Disney and Kipling/Perrault) and the sincerity in their approach to storytelling. They don't go for the obvious "adult" angle of graphic violence, sex or foul language, but they still recognize that quality storytelling knows when to be scary, in addition to funny or romantic. That and the humour is devoid of the kind of nonesense that often plagues kiddie movies (fart jokes in particular). They both strike that balance between being "safe" for kids (at least over 6), while still being engaging for adults. Just like the best Disney films do. Doesn't hurt that these movies are beautiful to look at and feature quite a lot of talent both in front of and behind the camera.

I'm now really interested in seeing what has been done with Beauty and the Beast and would like to see more Disney animated movies that are just O.K. (Aristocats, Black Cauldron, Fox and the Hound etc) made better by a live-action remake.

 

[Phroobar]

The Black Cauldron (and the entire Chronicles of Prydain books) would make a fantastic series. Where is Peter Jackson?

 

[jensenrick]

So - was I the only one bored? This story seemed aimed at 5 year olds.

 

[brb1006]

Having now seen the movie I think I understand why I enjoyed both this and the Cinderella remake as much as I did. Both film's represent a more adult approach to the same Disney subject matter without sacrificing the family appropriate nature of their stories. What makes these films "mature" is their respect for their sources (Disney and Kipling/Perrault) and the sincerity in their approach to storytelling. They don't go for the obvious "adult" angle of graphic violence, sex or foul language, but they still recognize that quality storytelling knows when to be scary, in addition to funny or romantic. That and the humour is devoid of the kind of nonesense that often plagues kiddie movies (fart jokes in particular). They both strike that balance between being "safe" for kids (at least over 6), while still being engaging for adults. Just like the best Disney films do. Doesn't hurt that these movies are beautiful to look at and feature quite a lot of talent both in front of and behind the camera.

I'm now really interested in seeing what has been done with Beauty and the Beast and would like to see more Disney animated movies that are just O.K. (Aristocats, Black Cauldron, Fox and the Hound etc) made better by a live-action remake.

I would imagine a Live-Action remake of The Aristocats to be an improvement to the original animated version. If it ever gotten green-light or announced in the future I can imagine the film to focus on more Madame Adelaide and how she began to love cats and how she gotten Duchess and the kittens along with explaining Edgar's disgust with her cats. Since Adelaide appears to be a widow, it might even contain a sad flashback to her spending her last moments with her husband. The first half can even show the younger years of Adelaide in Paris France sometime in the mid 1800's since the film is set in 1910.

I'm picturing the film to be a combination of the Live-Action Cinderella movie with a bit of The Jungle Book (At least with some of the talking animals characters but won't go to overboard with the CGI) but this time with French voice actors. I wish we could find a good actors like Eva Gabor to provide the voice of Live-Action Duchess if possible. However I will bet the Live-Action version might change some of the cat characters such as the Chinese Scat Cat member who's name I forgotten and the drunken goose uncle seen later in the film.

I wonder which actor and actress could do a perfect Live-Action appearance of Madame Adelaide and Edgar?

 

[champdisney]

The Jungle Book blew my mind! This movie was an overall stunning film with it's beautiful visuals, characters and musical score. I'm glad I saw it on IMAX 3D. It was a perfect hybrid of the classic Disney animated film taking more elements from the original story. I'm definitely looking forward to more Disney live action remakes going forward.

 

[Prince-1]

I saw this with my family and we all loved it. I thought it was one of the better live action cartoon movies that Disney has done. Only thing we all agreed on was that King Louie didn't work for us. He was waaaaaayyyyyy to big and we felt like his song didn't fit in the movie. It felt forced while Baloo singing Bare Necessities while floating down the river did. Either way...good job.

 

[BrerJon]

Lion King a lock-in for the live-action treatment next, no doubt.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Lion King a lock-in for the live-action treatment next, no doubt.

If it's a live-action film of the stage musical it might actually be good.

 

[Flippin'Flounder]

If it's a live-action film of the stage musical it might actually be good.

I'm still waiting for ABC to start doing live musicals, like NBC. They have Lion King, Aladdin, BatB, etc, it seems strange that it hasn't happened yet.

 

[champdisney]

Lion King a lock-in for the live-action treatment next, no doubt.

How would it be considered live action if no actual humans take part in that story? The animals will still all have to be done in CGI simply because...Well, lions, hyenas, warthogs and meerkats just don't act.

Therefore the Lion King will remain being done in an animated format.

 

[Flippin'Flounder]

I saw it today, and thought it was great. Unfortunately, it was in normal SD.

 

[Phroobar]

So when is the Jungle Cruise going to be converted into a Jungle Book ride?

 

[flynnibus]

Saw the film this weekend.

TL;DR - Its ok, but nothing to write home about or want to seek out again

The film's special effects are great and everything blends in very well. We saw it in real3D and except for the first few minutes, the 3D is pretty forgettable.

The casting of the kid was pretty good.. the writing for the tiger was pretty good I think.. Bill Murray was nice, but not knock your socks off.

When they first leave.. it's made out like they've been on some grand journey up until they get separated... they are so far away to be safe.. yet later in the film returning to the wolf's area is like a 10min run. wth..

Then later in the King Louie sequence.. the beast is so huge he's tearing down the room and creating earthquakes.. then 5 seconds later he's able to double back and sneak up on someone? wth..

I felt the songs were not nearly as stand-out as they are in the original. They are pretty much forgettable here.

I guess it's a nice movie to take your kids too if you need to find some entertainment for the afternoon, but I wouldn't call the film memorable by any stretch, nor worth going out of your way to see. It's not bad... it's just... bland.

I give it 2.5/5.0

 

[Dead2009]

The Jungle Book Roars Past $700 Million Worldwide
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/ne...ast-700-million-worldwide#u8ISR5ORrslqbegm.99

 

[Bairstow]

 

[RandomPrincess]

It's funny how this is a live action film when 90% of it is done with computer animation.