The Jungle Book

[Tashasaurous]

Curious what your specific examples of those things are. X

Uh...specific examples? Hmm, well, the 2003 remake of the Jungle Book for starters I think, and then there's Maleficent which just ruined the storyline of both the 1950's disney version and the original storybook of Sleeping Beauty, how they turned a villian into a protagonist who should remain a villian.

To me, remakes always mean as the same as reboot.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Uh...specific examples? Hmm, well, the 2003 remake of the Jungle Book for starters I think, and then there's Maleficent which just ruined the storyline of both the 1950's disney version and the original storybook of Sleeping Beauty, how they turned a villian into a protagonist who should remain a villian.

To me, remakes always mean as the same as reboot.

Isn't the 2003 Jungle Book just a sequel, and by that virtue basically like ALL direct-to-home-media Sequels (i.e. utterly terrible)?

And I can't agree with you on Maleficent, because I actually like that it's a version that seems to be told from the Fey's point of view rather than the Humans' and it's not like the Disney films've ever really remained faithful to their original mythology anyway.






X

 

[Obsidian Fire]

^^This is Malificent from the original when she's imprisoned Phillip in her dungeon: "The years roll by... but a hundred years, to a steadfast heart, are but a day. And now, the gates of the dungeon part, and our prince is free to go his way. And off he rides, on his noble steed, a valiant figure straight and tall! To wake his love, with love's first kiss, and prove that true love conquers all!"

She's pretty much the only villain in a fairy-tail Disney movie to actually come up with a good way of breaking up the couple in one of the worst ways possible (instead of killing them, she plans to just keep them separate until at least one of them is too old to make anything out of life). She also enjoys being evil up to the point that she wants to kill someone who did nothing to her just for kicks.

In order to get anything remotely positive out of her character Disney had to change the entire reason the character exists, namely cursing the princesses with an unbreakable death curse that someone else had to stick a loophole in. And in Malificent she's now the one both making the curse and putting a loophole in it?

I mean, I'm all for making more complex villains... but having to change the entire plot of the story and the character of the villain (make that every single character in the story) so that the villain is now an anti-hero? You might as well write an original story with original characters. Goodness knows we could actually use more original content in the live-action movie industry.

 

[Tennyo]

Are we ignoring the live action Jungle Book from the 90's? I actually enjoyed that one when I was a kid.

Edit: No we're not, but I still remember enjoying it.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

So, impressively, none of this was shot on location.




X

 

[Tashasaurous]

Whoever it was that said there aren't enough female characters should really pay more attention to all of the current versions of the Jungle Book.

I'm seriously miffed that they changed Kaa from male to female in this new version, because all of the other versions(from original book to the latest remake before this year), Kaa is a male snake, and he should've remained male.

I'm not saying anything bad about women, considering how I'm a woman myself, I just don't like the fact that this version of Kaa is a girl, which is seriously a bad idea.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Why does it matter so much to you / why do you feel that it's, "seriously a bad idea"? What is so important about his character being male? Also, what other female characters are there that they should be including instead of having Kaa as a female role?

I'm also curious why you're suddenly disturbed by this now, since it was one of the first things we heard in the teaser back in September, and it hadn't seemed to be a point worth mentioning at all until now, and you're even complaining about it in the Pete's Dragon thread, despite the fact that it's completely irrelevant there.



X

 

[Tashasaurous]

Why does it matter so much to you / why do you feel that it's, "seriously a bad idea"? What is so important about his character being male? Also, what other female characters are there that they should be including instead of having Kaa as a female role?

I'm also curious why you're suddenly disturbed by this now, since it was one of the first things we heard in the teaser back in September, and it hadn't seemed to be a point worth mentioning at all until now, and you're even complaining about it in the Pete's Dragon thread, despite the fact that it's completely irrelevant there.

Sorry, my bad. I only just found out about a month ago and I haven't been paying attention. I usually look up stuff on Wikipedia. *Sweatdrops*

 

[X-SOLDIER]

You still didn't answer any of my questions in my first paragraph, though which is what I'm more interested in.




X

 

[Tashasaurous]

You still didn't answer any of my questions in my first paragraph, though which is what I'm more interested in.

Well, if you really think about it, what will other people's reactions be when they see the movie when it hits theatres(cinemas) when they discover they changed Kaa's gender, for in all other versions, this is the first time he's been changed into a girl.

Plus, I do tend to have bad memories in a lotta of things when it comes to movie remakes that don't really interest me. So I forgot and I usually look up info on wikipedia, as I said earlier.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Well, if you really think about it, what will other people's reactions be when they see the movie when it hits theatres(cinemas) when they discover they changed Kaa's gender, for in all other versions, this is the first time he's been changed into a girl.

Plus, I do tend to have bad memories in a lotta of things when it comes to movie remakes that don't really interest me. So I forgot and I usually look up info on wikipedia, as I said earlier.

Ummmmm... Since Kaa was the one delivering all of the dialogue in the first teaser it's common knowledge. It's not at all secret or surprising. Additionally, since Kaa's gender is 100% irrelevant to the story, I don't think that anyone will have any reactions to seeing the character portrayed that way in the film because I can't think of a single way that it changes anything.


You still haven't at all addressed these comments you made:

• "Whoever it was that said there aren't enough female characters should really pay more attention to all of the current versions of the Jungle Book."
- Who? What other main characters are female that should've been included in this version instead of making Kaa a female?

• "I just don't like the fact that this version of Kaa is a girl, which is seriously a bad idea."
- Why is is a seriously bad idea? Why does it matter at all? What difference of ANY KIND is it actually going to make on the story?




X

 

[Tashasaurous]

Ummmmm... Since Kaa was the one delivering all of the dialogue in the first teaser it's common knowledge. It's not at all secret or surprising. Additionally, since Kaa's gender is 100% irrelevant to the story, I don't think that anyone will have any reactions to seeing the character portrayed that way in the film because I can't think of a single way that it changes anything.


You still haven't at all addressed these comments you made:

• "Whoever it was that said there aren't enough female characters should really pay more attention to all of the current versions of the Jungle Book."
- Who? What other main characters are female that should've been included in this version instead of making Kaa a female?

• "I just don't like the fact that this version of Kaa is a girl, which is seriously a bad idea."
- Why is is a seriously bad idea? Why does it matter at all? What difference of ANY KIND is it actually going to make on the story?X

Number one on your first question, Wikipedia always has links to other websites, and it has an article on someone I can't remember who, but you can look it up. Or, I can give you on what this guy said.

"Favreau decided to cast Johansson to play Kaa, originally a male character, as he felt the original film was "a little too male-oriented"." and he also changed king Louie from "orangutan to a Gigantopithecus due to the fact that orangutans are not native to the area in which the story takes place." which this is from wikipedia.

Which also kinda answers why I think changing Kaa's gender is seriously a bad idea. Because this guy obviously didn't like how the original film turned out. (I think he thought the Disney animation was the original film and didn't actually even watch the 1930's live action version).

 

[X-SOLDIER]

You know that when he says, "the original" he's referring to the original Disney film, because this is also a Disney film, and it's being based around that. (That's why "Jugle Book: Origins" is totally different film being made by a different studio, and not based on the Disney version at all). Aside from that, you still haven't mentioned any other female character from the Jungle Book.

Also, there's nothing wrong about changing King Louie to an accurate species for the region for a movie more grounded in a realistic setting. There's literally nothing even remotely negative about that.

I have NO idea how you're drawing the conclusion from that that Favreau, "obviously didn't like how the original film turned out." or how any of that is relevant to Kaa's gender being changed. You've still yet to present a single coherent answer about why Kaa being a male matters AT ALL.




X

 

[Geostigma]

So you think changing Kaa to Female is bad because it's somehow proof that Jon doesn't understand , know, or respect the franchise?

Changing Kaa to female and Louie to a more realistic animal given the Location doesn't change anything about the movie. It doesn't change how these characters script work is written. It doesn't change the fact that 2 excellent Actors are playing them, it doesn't change that this movie has an excellent cast. I can go on but we all get the point.

2 truthfully minor changes don't indicate jack. He didn't want the cast to be a Cockfest and put a more realistic Ape in the movie. Big whoop.

edit:

Man it sucks to be ninja'd by a significantly more articulate post making the same point haha.

 

[Tetsujin]

That's why "Jungle Book: Origins" is totally different film being made by a different studio, and not based on the Disney version at all

I just found out that is a thing.

Interestingly, it seems Kaa is female there too.

 

[Tashasaurous]

You know that when he says, "the original" he's referring to the original Disney film, because this is also a Disney film, and it's being based around that. (That's why "Jugle Book: Origins" is totally different film being made by a different studio, and not based on the Disney version at all). Aside from that, you still haven't mentioned any other female character from the Jungle Book.

Also, there's nothing wrong about changing King Louie to an accurate species for the region for a movie more grounded in a realistic setting. There's literally nothing even remotely negative about that.

I have NO idea how you're drawing the conclusion from that that Favreau, "obviously didn't like how the original film turned out." or how any of that is relevant to Kaa's gender being changed. You've still yet to present a single coherent answer about why Kaa being a male matters AT ALL.

Then that just proves my point that he hasn't seen any other versions, Disney made or not.

Besides, I don't see what his problem is in the original Disney film not having enough females, if any at all. As for ways of female characters, there's Mowgli's wolf mother, Winifred the female elephant(the wife of Haiti and mother of Jr.), and that human girl at the end of the film.

Nothing wrong about how many men or women are in movies, I was just saying.

Plus, I just don't like the fact that they changed Kaa's gender. I liked that snake better as his true gender(not to mention his comedy relief moments, especially the scenes where he ends up pushed off by Mowgli and gets a knot in his tail and ends up turning himself into an...whatever how he turned himself into before crawling away-twice. That always made me laugh, even just by remembering it.).

Actually, I'm not that fussed about King Louie being changed from one monkey to another. Which reminds me, I feel so terrible for the poor Orantanges(Ugh, me and my bad memory in spelling).

 

[Geostigma]

Then that just proves my point that he hasn't seen any other versions, Disney made or not.

What? How? It just means that (shocker) Jon is making a Disney movie , based on the Disney rendition of the franchise , for... Disney.

Nothing X said means that like at all. You're literally just jumping to conclusions and your proof is "because reasons".

Plus, I just don't like the fact that they changed Kaa's gender. I liked that snake better as his true gender(not to mention his comedy relief moments, especially the scenes where he ends up pushed off by Mowgli and gets a knot in his tail and ends up turning himself into an...whatever how he turned himself into before crawling away-twice. That always made me laugh, even just by remembering it.).

Exactly how does Kaa being female now affect that at all. I have no idea how gender can have baring on that like at all.

And you know what?

Kaa doesn't have a "True gender" No one in fiction does. Sorry.
It's a retelling of a beloved story it's not a panel for panel live action recreation. People are allowed to be transformative with the content.

Actually, I'm not that fussed about King Louie being changed from one monkey to another.

This is weird. Sorry but it's hypocritical.

Your entire point is basically "The director doesn't know what he's doing with Jungle Book because he changed the Gender of a character"

But changing the actual species of another character is perfectly fine? Your point doesn't hold any water if you actively contradict it in the same post.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Saw this today! I enjoyed it quite a bit, and my lady (who actually remembers the Disney film) liked it even more. The visuals are quite impressive, and a majority of the time, it's easy to forget that most everything is digitally created. It's still a good ways from being flawless, but I just love things like this to bits.




X

 

[ForceStealer]

But are there vultures impersonating the Beatles?

 

[X-SOLDIER]

There are vultures, but I do not believe that they are doing impersonation.

Additionally, it's worth noting that you'll want to see this in a nice theater if possible. I just saw it in an older one by my house, and the aspect ratio cuts off the top and bottom of everything. It doesn't make a difference during the film itself, but it's REALLY noticeable in the opening and ending credits that you are and have been missing shit.




X

 

[Tetsujin]

Decided to watch this tomorrow. I don't really have any expectations nor do I remember the Disney movie all that much.
Interestingly, the WB adaptation apart from being pushed back to 2018 was apparently renamed to simply "Jungle Book"?
Like...Jungle Book: Origins might have given the false impression of it being a prequel to the Disney movie or something but at least it was more of a distinction. Now shit's gonna be even more confusing for the casual audience.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

X

 

[Pixel]

I watched this yesterday. I thought it was pretty great, but I wasn't a fan of some of the voice work. Idris Elba did not suit Shir Khan, and I wasnt too sure about Ben Kingsley at times either. Maybe to american ears Idris Elba sounds posh or whatever, but that statement about him being too "street" for James Bond is true for this role, too. His voice and london accent didn't really work for me. Ben Kingsley was fine 50% of the time, but there were times it sounded phoned in. Favreau likes to work with people he's worked with before, and that's fine, but I'd rather have voices that fit.

Bill Murry was perfect. Christopher Walken kinda threw me, but once you get used to it it's fine.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

X

 

[X-SOLDIER]

X