|
The Lion King 2019
|
Ohhh, I did not knew that Mangal Pandey was a flop, very sad, I liked the story.
I think that "MahaBharat" and "Ramayan" could be made like "The Lord of the Rings" in several parts, but they will need a good director and good actors to provide the movies that those stories deserve.  (01-12-2019, 02:20 PM)sanjay Wrote: The Mowgli movie animation was little different, they use photo realistic face animations. Yeah, but I don't like this latest animation of "Warner Bros"! I mean, just look up the difference. Which one is realistic?  *This image is copyright of its original author They don't do that good for baloo and bagheera too..  *This image is copyright of its original author While this is a bit better..  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Disney's one is better and realistic for me actually.. (01-13-2019, 09:28 AM)Wolverine Wrote: Why Indian cinema doesn't try also to follow this path? It has great potential. Enough with those endless Bollywood soap operas and silly love stories, all the same... There is a need of imagination. You see Hollywood? Western people have always admired Ancient Greece and Greek mythology and history. So many gorgeous and great Hollywood movies about ancient heroes like Hercules, clashes between gods and the titans, epic Troyan wars, battles between Perseus and monstrous Gorgon Medusa etc etc... Indian history and mythology is even richer and probably not less fascinating than Greek. Why Indian film directors doesn't try to resurrect by modern IT technology and computer design all these crashes between cods and rakshasas, epic battles between ancient Indian kingdoms, Hindu heroes, travel of yogis through the multi-dimentional parallel worlds, nature etc etc. Enough of these endless silly love stories with Khans, 1000 films produced annually and all the same. Bollywood needs Imagination, Imagination and again Imagination. The reasons why indian cinemas don't try that great is of course technology problem, like @sanjay said. Also Indian audience don't encourage that much in these kind of movies. Many people are maniacs of those silly love stories, and many directors &producers look for good business. Only a few done experiments like shanker, SS rajamouli, etc.. where star hero movies will always be hit or atleast average in collection. But sometimes failures happened too. Many directors follow the same love song, and comedy theory in any kind of movie. Instead of reality. Which is why they lack the perfection. And of course, most of the audience are expecting the same thing!  (01-13-2019, 09:03 PM)Panther Wrote:(01-12-2019, 02:20 PM)sanjay Wrote: The Mowgli movie animation was little different, they use photo realistic face animations. that's what i'm trying to say. 
I read both Jungle Books by Rudyard Kipling. He made it crystal clear that Baloo is a brown bear ( even though Disney called him a sloth bear ). The only brown bear in India is the Himalayan brown bear; also called the red bear. He may very well be the smallest of the world's brown bears and ( for a brown bear ) a sweet disposition.
(01-14-2019, 01:15 AM)brotherbear Wrote: He may very well be the smallest of the world's brown bears and ( for a brown bear ) a sweet disposition. This is from Official Himalayan national park site. They gave upto 550kgs weight for them. So probably not a small one.. https://www.greathimalayannationalpark.o...rown-bear/ (01-14-2019, 01:15 AM)brotherbear Wrote: I read both Jungle Books by Rudyard Kipling. He made it crystal clear that Baloo is a brown bear ( even though Disney called him a sloth bear ). The only brown bear in India is the Himalayan brown bear; also called the red bear. He may very well be the smallest of the world's brown bears and ( for a brown bear ) a sweet disposition. Jungle Book by Rudyard happened in Seeonee's Pench Tiger reserve (or mowgli tiger reserve) of Madhya Pradesh (central India) and there are no brown bears (himalayan) except Sloth bears. Though in Jungle Book I loved it to see brown bear in Movie...  One of the best films of my life.
(01-13-2019, 09:03 PM)Panther Wrote: Yeah, but I don't like this latest animation of "Warner Bros"! I mean, just look up the difference. Which one is realistic? I think that the animals of Disney are better than those from Warner, they are more realistic. However, the story of Warner is much better than that of Disney, is more ground up, I think. However, while I prefer the face of the tiger of Disney, the body and specially the limping defect of the Warner tiger is the one from the original book, after all, Shere Khan was not a real tiger "king", it was a nasty and relativelly weak tiger. However, the Shere Khan of Disney is a real "king", an incredible killing machine (defeated a big brown bear, a big leopard and a pack of gray wolves!), that will no need to kill cattle and by no means will have the need to kill humans. Even then, I have a like for the Baloo and Baghera of Warner, some how, I think that the story of Baghera of Warner is very interesting. The two movies are great, but one is more drive to kids and families and the other for grown up people, I think. (01-14-2019, 10:56 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: I think that the animals of Disney are better than those from Warner, they are more realistic. However, the story of Warner is much better than that of Disney, is more ground up, I think. Yeah, maybe story part of warner is of course a little better and realistic. But for animation, even for baloo and bagheera Disney's one is better for me! The problem is, they put old human facials for the animals like baloo and bagheera. But even in real world, old animal doesn't look like that, but like baloo and bagheera from Disney! (01-14-2019, 11:06 AM)Panther Wrote: Yeah, maybe story part of warner is of course a little better. But for animation, even for baloo and bagheera Disney's one is better for me! Yes, that is correct, Disney animals ARE animals, while Warner animals are like cartoons of animals. Even then, somehow, I like the face of Baloo and Baghera of Warner. I am not saying that is better, just that I like it too. Now I don't like the face of Shere Khan of Warner, it looks completelly unreal. Now, while the faces of the wolves seems weird, the body is actually more accurate in Warner than in Disney. The wolves of Warner look like Indian wolves, while those from Disney look like Eurasian wolves. Check the Indian wolves:  *This image is copyright of its original author Now check the Eurasian ones:  *This image is copyright of its original author This images are from the book "Canids of the World" of José Castelló of 2018, an incredible book by the way! Now, while the end of the Warner movie was, somehow, better, the Warner movie lacks the incredible figth of Shere Khan with Baloo/Baghera/wolves (the best part for me!), but this is because the lanky tiger of Warner will be no match to any of them, while the tiger from Disney, like I say before, is the perfect example of the big Bengal male tigers in our days.  (01-14-2019, 10:09 AM)Panther Wrote:(01-14-2019, 01:15 AM)brotherbear Wrote: He may very well be the smallest of the world's brown bears and ( for a brown bear ) a sweet disposition. To add to confusion there are actually two types of brown bear subspecies in the Himalayan region one is a Himalayan brown bear or red bear ursus arctos isabellinus and the other is Tibetan brown/ blue bear ursus arctos prouinosus. The photos Himalayan brown bear are overall reddish in coloration  *This image is copyright of its original author The Tibetan blue bear have darker brown almost blackish body and paler face almost like wearing a yellow mask, they have prominent white chest marking  *This image is copyright of its original author Apparently blue bears are more carnivorous and aggressive one, they have been known to charge vehicle and people. I don't know much about Himalayan brown though they might be more placid of the two. Pretty confusing right!!! Himalayan brown bear (01-14-2019, 10:09 AM)Panther Wrote:(01-14-2019, 01:15 AM)brotherbear Wrote: He may very well be the smallest of the world's brown bears and ( for a brown bear ) a sweet disposition. That site says Himalayan brown bear but then gives basic brown bear information. Here is one better: https://www.coniferousforest.com/himalay...n-bear.htm Size: Males – 5 ft to 7 ft 3 in (1.5-2.2 m); Females – 4 ft 6 in to 6 ft (1.37m-1.83 m) Weight: Males – 298 lb (135 kg); Females – 150 lb (70 kg) Color: Reddish-brown to sandy (01-14-2019, 10:20 AM)Sanju Wrote:(01-14-2019, 01:15 AM)brotherbear Wrote: I read both Jungle Books by Rudyard Kipling. He made it crystal clear that Baloo is a brown bear ( even though Disney called him a sloth bear ). The only brown bear in India is the Himalayan brown bear; also called the red bear. He may very well be the smallest of the world's brown bears and ( for a brown bear ) a sweet disposition. This is true, I'm sure. But while Rudyard Kipling was a great writer he was no animals expert. He made it exceptionally clear in his Second Jungle Book when he writes Baloo the Brown Bear with three capital B's. Perhaps he simply preferred a brown bear to a shaggy black sloth bear. It is pure fiction after all.
Jimmy, I did not know that there are Tibetan brown bears ( blue bears ) in India.
(01-14-2019, 02:01 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Jimmy, I did not know that there are Tibetan brown bears ( blue bears ) in India. There aren't to the record, but the range could overlap in some trans-himalaya (directly behind the main himalaya and thus a rain-shadow area)that share the boundary with Tibet. Tibetan brown bear are more rare, they seem to be adapted to flatter cold deserts- true plateu type landscape while Himalayan brownie seems more mountainous type. Actually only Himalayan black bears can traverse between tropical jungle and mountains. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |