|
The Jungle Book Official US Teaser Trailer - april 2016
|
"Open your eyes Pckts. Neither Rudyard Kipling, nor Walt Disney, nor Jon Favreau stated the species of Baloo. Unless of course, a "sleepy brown bear" was a reference to his species. Look at these pictures and then try to convince us that Baloo is a small, black, shaggy bear who sucks up ants and termites. I suspect that you are either in dire need of an optometrist or you are simply very unbear-savy. "
Hahah Is this serious? The movie is directed by Jon Favreau and in HIS movie, Baloo is a Sloth bear. The screen play for THIS movie was written by Justin Marks and his adaption has baloo as a Sloth bear. What are you trying to argue about? No body cares that you don't think they look right, it doesn't change what Baloo is nor does it change the wolves or Louie. DISNEY's Roll Call So, between choosing between your interpretation compared to the Actual movie, I think I'll go with the latter. 
The script may have been written with a sloth bear in mind ( in the early stages ). Rudyard Kipling's bear certainly wasn't. The kid on your video is not Jon Favreau. The bear in the movie is a computer generated Himalayan brown bear - looks like a brown bear - big like a brown bear - acts like a brown bear. So Pckts, look at this picture and tell me that, in your eyes, it looks like a small, black, shaggy sloth bear with a naked gray muzzle.
By the way, I understand why you are in denial of a "grizzly" being in a movie that you like... but that is all I will say of that. Here is your "sloth bear" ( sarcasm ).  *This image is copyright of its original author
I,m through with this topic for obvious reasons...
 *This image is copyright of its original author
In the words of Lt. Columbo, "just one more thing." Disney has announced a "Jungle Book sequel." We will again be seeing the feral jungle boy Mowgli, Bagheera the black panther whom Kipling described as Mowgi's "big brother" and Baloo, the big brown bear which Kipling referred to as "the teacher of the jungle law" rather than the carefree "hobo" in the Disney tales. http://movies.ndtv.com/hollywood/there-w...1399447?fb
Ok, in post #63 I stated that I am through with this topic. However, I continue to discover more to add. What I should have said was, "I am done having a juvenile argument with pckts."
I was talking to my youngest daughter on the phone this morning. She had taken her two oldest kids to see 'The Jungle Book'. Solomon, her oldest ( 9 yrs old ) told his Mom, after Bagheera called Baloo a "sloth bear" that "Baloo is not a sloth bear. He is a grizzly bear." This was told to me by my daughter Ginger and I had not mentioned the subject. I told her to tell Solomon that he is exactly right, Baloo is a type of grizzly that lives in the Himalayan Mountains. I am very proud of my grandson for noticing the difference.
haha I like how you said you want to move on 4 posts ago yet you still post this non sense.
So, is King Louie an Orangutan? Are the Wolves, grey wolves? Are none of the gibbons real since they aren't the correct size? Feel free to PM me and lets bet on this bear? Lets put our money where your mouth is. We can email the studio and ask them what type of bear baloo is? I mean, once the studio answers that question, isn't that the end of it?
Pckts, you go by what people say. I go with what I see, knowing the difference between a sloth bear and a grizzly visually.
You believe that the computer-generated bear in the 2016 Jungle Book movie is a sloth bear. I *see it as a Himalayan brown bear that, because he is afraid of heights lives in the jungle. You call Baloo a sloth bear - I call Baloo a grizzly - lets just leave it there; shall we?
http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Baloo
Baloo appears in the live-action 2016 film, voiced by Bill Murray. In this version, he is depicted as a Himalayan Brown Bear (though in the film he is clearly stated to be a Sloth Bear by Bagheera). Baloo is the first to attack the tiger, and fights bravely and fiercely until he is injured too much to fight any longer. Walt Disney was known to take a lot of liberties when taking a book and transforming it into a "Disney Story." In Kipling's book, Baloo's species was never told. He was simply referred to as a "sleepy brown bear." In the animated Disney film, Baloo was depicted as a sloth bear. In the 2016 movie, a Himalayan brown bear was used as the model for Baloo. However, Bagheera calls him a sloth bear. I dug out my old 1950 edition of 'The Jungle Book' yesterday. In 'Kaa's Hunting' Bagheera informs the 30 foot-long python that the Bandar-log had called him a "Footless, yellow earthworm," ( a sarcastic insult ). In 'Mowgli's Brothers' ... Then the only other creature who is allowed at the Pack Council - Baloo, the sleepy brown bear who teaches the wolf cubs the Law of the Jungle: old Baloo, who can come and go where he pleases because he eats only nuts and roots and honey - rose up on his hind quarters and grunted. In 'Kaa's Hunting, ... It was in the days when Baloo was teaching him the Law of the Jungle. The big, serious, old brown bear was delighted to have so quick a pupil... and again in Kaa's Hunting ... "Fool that I am! Oh, fat, brown, root-digging fool that I am,"  *This image is copyright of its original author
I believe that Rudyard Kipling was likely inspired by the ancient story-teller Aesop. Also, he was certainly inspired by tales, both fiction and non-fiction about feral children. The story of Romulus and Remus comes to mind.
i loved the film... Cleverly made.. Sherkhan was awesome.. Especially his scene with the wolf pups.. My only issue was with baloo being so huge and losing to khan.... Otherwise an amazing milestone I
(05-06-2016, 10:47 PM)Pradyumna Wrote: i loved the film... Cleverly made.. Sherkhan was awesome.. Especially his scene with the wolf pups.. My only issue was with baloo being so huge and losing to khan.... Otherwise an amazing milestone I I have a copy of Disney's "Official Collector's Edition" of the Jungle Book ( magazine ). Jon Favreau's idea was for all of the animals to be bigger than life beacause, as he explains, this is how they would look through the eyes of a 10-year-old boy. 
I saw the new Jungle Book two weeks ago. Although it had been running for two weeks, the cinema was still loaded. They said it wasn't for children, but I saw many on that day and they thoroughly enjoyed it. After the movie, they were the ones who yelled and applauded. Never saw that before. At least, children were never involved.
The new Jungle Book is very different from what I expected. I didn't see Kipling anywhere and it no longer is your typical feel-good story. I wouldn't know how to describe it in a few sentences, but I do know it stuck. Quite something for animation. Two weeks after the event, I still feel unable to tell you what I think. Although in some ways close to a dream, it's also raw and harsh at times. It's about the Indian jungle a century ago, and then it's not. Maybe it's about something that was lost when humans changed their ways half a century ago or so. I seldom, if ever, read something I would describe as essential on humans and wildlife nowadays. A few reports about clashes between villagers and wild animals somewhere in Africa or India, indignation about dentists hunting lions and a bit more here and there. And that's about it. Humans and animals now really seem to live in two different worlds. I read some books written in the days of colonisation. Hundreds of thousands born and bred in the west went to Africa and Asia to work for large firms and governments. They had to cope with conditions they didn't really know about and there was a lot of resistance. Dutch authorities reported about strange phenomena every now and then. My father told me about something known as 'tropical madness' in what's now Indonesia. At times, well-trained men disappeared while exploring wild places. Most were never seen again, but some were found and sent home to recuperate. After one or two years, they returned. Although declared sound and fit, not a few of them got lost again. At times, they found their notebooks, clothes, shoes and tent somewhere in the jungle. The camp was clean, neat and in good order, except for the owner of the clothes who was nowhere to be seen. The prints he left were followed, but in all reports I read they suddenly disappeared. Remember these were excellent trackers able to find elusive animals in dense jungles. Even tiger hunters came up empty. So what happened? They never found satisfactory answers, but those who wrote books in which they featured did a bit of research. What they found, is this. People who had gone missing in wild places had talked about their experience back home. What doctors heard, often was a bit weird. So much so, they were not prepared to risk their reputation on it. In most cases, the 'patient' was sent to a sea resort to recover. After he had stopped talking about hidden kingdoms ruled by animals and things like that, he was declared sound and fit for work. In Surinam, Indonesia and New-Guinea, things went well for some time. Nobody ever noticed anything out of the ordinary. He started exploring wild places again or picked up building roads. Everything went well for some time. Than, one day, he was lost again. They never found someone who had disappeared a second time. Remember those who got lost often were well-trained, intelligent and experienced men with a family, not drop-outs. In a way, it's not that different from feral children. Hewett wrote about them in his book ('Jungle trails in northern India'). Although stories about feral children still often are dismissed, these children were very real. It also is a fact they had survived on their own in the wild for many years. Very often, they were found close to animals. They didn't die in the wild, that is. They died in the orphanages where they sent them after they had been found. Not one of them adapted to society. Most perished well before their time. So what is behind all this? And what had they seen? Why was Kipling able to write the story that got famous? My advice is to visit wild places for a prolonged period of time. Most of us won't last very long, as it's a very different world. As to what happens when you get lost. My guess is the children in the cinema who saw Jungle Book knew. The problem is there is a difference between knowing and being able to tell. Human language just isn't the correct tool to describe things that need to be felt and sensed. This is how it works in music and arts and this is how it works in the wild. There's no use for words when you want to inform someone on something essential. You do it in a different way. A much faster and more clear way. You use a posture or a stare to transfer information and the other immediately understands. If he or she doesn't, it's tickets: he won't make it and there's nothing you can do to change that. I also think you can transfer emotions or insights without gestures or sound. But it requires the ability to feel and this is something very different from what we are made to believe in adds or movies. When you live a life in which this kind of communication is crucial and you succeed, you will never be able to adapt to humans and human society again. Nor, maybe, would you want to. I thought I saw something of what I mean but can't explain in Jungle Book, but I could be wrong. The nice thing about art is there are many different interpretations and explanations. Not one of them is right. They all are. 
I think jungle book is inspired by Rudyard Kipling's story of junglebook. It is like a more modernised version, more realistic unlike typical fiction stories. The hardwork of the team is reflected in the movie. They made amazing visual effects with more realistic thinking while interactions among characters. It is quite amazing movie. It gives you the real feel of the indian jungle, deep involvement into it. But as brother bear said the bear was just too big unlike in the original story. Rest all seem to be very well characterized.
(05-11-2016, 05:10 PM)parvez Wrote: I think jungle book is inspired by Rudyard Kipling's story of junglebook. It is like a more modernised version, more realistic unlike typical fiction stories. The hardwork of the team is reflected in the movie. They made amazing visual effects with more realistic thinking while interactions among characters. It is quite amazing movie. It gives you the real feel of the indian jungle, deep involvement into it. But as brother bear said the bear was just too big unlike in the original story. Rest all seem to be very well characterized. The 2016 movie was a little closer to the actual book than the Disney animated version. Though not truly realistic, the books by Rudyard Kipling were more so than the movies. The 1942 movie featuring Sabu as Mowgli was actually the closest thus-far to the books. As stated in post #71, all of the animals are somewhat over-sized. The second sentence in The Second Jungle Book, published a year after the original says, "You will remember that Mowgli spent a great part of his life in the Seeonee Wolf-Pack, learning the Law from Baloo, the Brown Bear." The actual size of Baloo is never mentioned. (05-11-2016, 06:16 PM)brotherbear Wrote:(05-11-2016, 05:10 PM)parvez Wrote: I think jungle book is inspired by Rudyard Kipling's story of junglebook. It is like a more modernised version, more realistic unlike typical fiction stories. The hardwork of the team is reflected in the movie. They made amazing visual effects with more realistic thinking while interactions among characters. It is quite amazing movie. It gives you the real feel of the indian jungle, deep involvement into it. But as brother bear said the bear was just too big unlike in the original story. Rest all seem to be very well characterized. But brown bears are not present in Indian jungles. He also learnt the law of jungle from bageerah, the black panther. But this is the more modernised version as i said. Books are lot more imaginary involving a lot of fiction in them. But this movie IMO was close to reality. The behaviour of animals, the logic in their actions, words etc are very clearly shown in a right way. In short they used the jungle book original story to create new and reality close story with similar characters, a remodelled version of jungle book if you ask me. It is a difference between the then times of rudyard kipling who must have added fictional stories from local people and this era's view of people for animals. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |