Le Saboteur
Active member
WilliamBoyd8 said:What is an American grizzly bear doing in a film about India?
Surely you meant to ask why a Himalayan brown bear is hanging about the Seoni Forest of Central India?
WilliamBoyd8 said:What is an American grizzly bear doing in a film about India?
Le Saboteur said:Surely you meant to ask why a Himalayan brown bear is hanging about the Seoni Forest of Central India?
Regarding your comment, "adds to the uncharted feel of the Jungle book": It's doubtful that you're familiar with the source material.TheFedora said:Okay I kind of had that coming....
But yeah, my point was that this new addition does give a new element of mysteriousness and adds to the uncharted feel of the Jungle book.
Really? A wandering/lost animal makes much more sense than an extinct one.TheFedora said:Makes as much sense as Giganthopithecus being around although it went extinct 100,000 years ago...
TheFedora said:Makes as much sense as Giganthopithecus being around although it went extinct 100,000 years ago...
TheFedora said:Well, they are taking certain liberties with the fauna of Central India that's for sure.
TheFedora said:(well if you believe the Bigfooters, Giganthopithecus -is- Yeti which lives in the Himalayas)
Stoo said:What it adds is a convoluted explanation for something that was a Disney mistake in the 1st place. King Louie is not one of Kipling's creations. He's a Disney thing. Even though he's a fun character, if they wanted to take a more 'realistic' approach, then Disney should've gotten rid of him completely instead of a wild explanation that will probably never be explained in the movie.
Le Saboteur said:If you have the time, do take a tour around the 'net and read a few of the interviews Favreau has done and how he describes the process on this flick being almost identical to an animated feature.
I think It looks fantastic I can't wait!!!!Le Saboteur said:Mine should be. It was going to be until they changed the release date to next year when I'll actually be in Kipling country. Now I'm not sure if it will even be in theatres when I get back.
And it did. On the teevee. Jon Favreau stopped by the Access Hollywood studio to debut the trailer for the general public. The high-quality version wasn't released until earlier today.
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HcgJRQWxKnw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Quick thoughts: This doesn't appear to be a straight adaptation/remake/whatever of the '67 version. There are too many shots of other chapters in the Mowgli stories for it to be a genuine remake.
The animals look great. It's especially nice to have Kaa back to [sic] his true form. Still not keen on ScarJo's voicework though.
Poor Lungri.
Is Hathi going to let in the jungle?!
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_kl0-C_AE_8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Pale Horse said:With all that CGI, why wouldn't it be?
DARTH ZOIDBERG said:I love the fact that It looks like a big homage to the original Disney cartoon.
good points my friendLe Saboteur said:It's more about approach and process; the animators were there from beginning to end rather than sloughing it off to the VFX team after principle photography was completed.
The second Hindi-language trailer was released yesterday. While it recycles a lot of footage from the US trailers, there's quite a bit of new footage too. Of note: our first good look at Akela and Raksha. Dig Irrfan Khan's take on Shere Khan too!
Please note: A massive, massive spoiler is seemingly confirmed if you're even remotely familiar with the book. Stop about halfway through. Or just don't watch it at all if you want to go in blind.
You have been warned.
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JCgPGFunkig" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
That's <s>Amrish</s> Om Puri doing work as Baloo; Quantico star Priyanka Chopra voicing Kaa and the aforementioned Irrfan Khan as Shere Khan;
While there are definite homages or nods to Disney's animated classic in this version -- Kaa attempting to eat Mowgli, the Bare Necessities, etc. -- I'm not sure that's the right term. This flick appears to be hewing quite close to the book in terms of tone and structure, and as such has quickly become it's own thing. It's as different from the '67 version as the '94 version is different from both of these 'animated' offerings.
Also released yesterday were a handful of promotional photos featuring the principle cast members posing along side their animated counterparts. They're all class, but these are my favorites.
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/42281656@N05/25679029190/in/dateposted-public/" title="THE JUNGLE BOOK"><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1497/25679029190_d5f0ccd806_c.jpg" width="534" height="800" alt="THE JUNGLE BOOK"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Full gallery here.
Pale Horse said:It's no George Burns, but it's uplifting and magnanimous.
Pale Horse said:I was down on this, I admit. It's been a roller coaster. But I read a Favreau interview and his perspective is encouraging. I suspect it'll be a Tron: Legacy scenario where the initial expectation will let everyone down, but it'll grow on you with repeated viewings.
Pale Horse said:I saw it. Thank you Jon for not ruining my childhood. It's a solid film. It's not a blockbuster. I loved the Bruce Dickinson easter egg.
I'll be happy to see this through kiddo's eyes.
TheFedora said:Especially since a sequel was announced right away, gives me confidence that they think it will do well.[/URL]
Pale Horse said:I loved the Bruce Dickinson easter egg.
I remember playing Kim's Game in Scouts, a great tradition.Le Saboteur said:This is from the inside cover of my first edition of Kim.