Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle | Nov 29 2018 (LA, NY), Dec 7 (Netflix) | Bale, Blanchett, Cumberbatch & Naomie Harris confirmed

[NoobSaibot]

20 minutes ago, Blipsy said:

This movie actually looks pretty decent. But I think it's going to bomb HARD. I have next to no knowledge of Kipling's actual books, so I can't say how this compares to that. But I will say that to most people, it will probably just look like a rip-off of Disney's remake from a couple years ago. And I KNOW that has been said about it countless times, but finally seeing some footage really makes it sink in. There's just not enough to differentiate the two, despite WB advertising how "dark" it is. 

The books are amazing. You need to read them.

[raulbalarezo]

It is me or some of the animals have humanoid faces? Wtf 

Edited May 22, 2018 by raulbalarezo

[WittyUsername]

43 minutes ago, raulbalarezo said:

It is me or some of the animals have humanoid faces? Wtf 

Motion capture. 

[The Futurist]

#ReleaseTheShinyColoursCut

[Darth Lehnsherr]

I liked the trailer! Wasn't really interested in this film (well tbh completely forgot about it) but the trailer has got me curious. 

 

[a2k]

i love that animals look less realistic and more like humans. that's the whole point and makes it easier to anthropomorphize them. completely realistic animals talking in human voices and language is something that put me off about TJB. animals with human features to a flaw is what nicely combines live action rendering of a fantastical tale.

[Krissykins]

Whole project seems so redundant.

 

I didn’t like the Disney remake so I’m not interested in this. 

[Avatree]

I just hope its a hit so that Andy Serkis can be given the money to make Animal Farm.

[GraceRandolph]

The cgi looks awful and those humanoid faces aren’t good. The point in live action is for it to look REAL. If they are gonna look like cartoons then they might as well animate the entire movie. 

[norbar]

Jesus they look like bad human like robots. It's offputting even if the idea might have seemed good on paper

[babz06]

Unfortunately going to bomb even if it may be a better film. I still don’t understand why studios continually do this themselves. It’s inevitable that when two similar projects come out one has to fail. Why waste the money? 

[filmlover]

56 minutes ago, babz06 said:

Unfortunately going to bomb even if it may be a better film. I still don’t understand why studios continually do this themselves. It’s inevitable that when two similar projects come out one has to fail. Why waste the money? 

This was actually made in early 2015 (around the time the Disney version was). Originally it was gonna open a year after the Disney version thinking that film was gonna be closer to the Disney cartoon than to the books, but then the movie actually came out and they saw that the Disney version ended up closer to the books than they thought (rendering this version useless). I'm sure if it had been in pre-production when the Disney film opened and not already made they would've cancelled it.

[Jonwo]

28 minutes ago, filmlover said:

This was actually made in early 2015 (around the time the Disney version was). Originally it was gonna open a year after the Disney version thinking that film was gonna be closer to the Disney cartoon than to the books, but then the movie actually came out and they saw that the Disney version ended up closer to the books than they thought (rendering this version useless). I'm sure if it had been in pre-production when the Disney film opened and not already made they would've cancelled it.

I imagine they also didn't want to damage their relationship with Andy Serkis by cancelling the movie during its post production stage and that's still millions of dollars wasted. At least with the finished film even if it doesn't do well, they'll still make money from it. 

 

 

 

[WittyUsername]

2 hours ago, filmlover said:

This was actually made in early 2015 (around the time the Disney version was). Originally it was gonna open a year after the Disney version thinking that film was gonna be closer to the Disney cartoon than to the books, but then the movie actually came out and they saw that the Disney version ended up closer to the books than they thought (rendering this version useless). I'm sure if it had been in pre-production when the Disney film opened and not already made they would've cancelled it.

While I haven’t read the original Kipling stories, isn’t the Disney remake primarily based on the 1967 animated film? I know that the characterizations for Baloo and Kaa were different from how they were in the Kipling book. 

[Jordanstine]

What do you think was WB's budget on this one? Disney's was supposedly $175 million.

[Pinacolada]

1 hour ago, Jordanstine said:

What do you think was WB's budget on this one? Disney's was supposedly $175 million.

I think it'll be the same. $150 million at the least. Probably right at $175 million which is gonna be tough on this movie. Hopefully it can make at least $400 million. That'll still have it lose money but it wouldn't be a bomb. I just don't see this doing $500 million+ even though I'm excited for it. I'd be happy with $400 mil so it can't get called a disaster

[MovieGuyKyle17]

It's sad that this trailer was boring. Now granted the disney film a few years ago came out took me by surprise as i'm not into the Jungle Book but yeah I hope this is good since I do like Andy Serkis

[bangbingchan]

On 2018/5/22 at 9:30 PM, babz06 said:

Unfortunately going to bomb even if it may be a better film. I still don’t understand why studios continually do this themselves. It’s inevitable that when two similar projects come out one has to fail. Why waste the money? 

This project is before TJB,But push up two year to release.

[dudalb]

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 3:26 AM, Krissykins said:

Whole project seems so redundant.

 

I didn’t like the Disney remake so I’m not interested in this. 

You know the whole purpose of this film it to go back to the original Kipling stories,which are often radically different then the Disney version?

I don't know how it will turn out, but I don't think it's redundant,given how the Disney version is so different from the original source material.

I think it is sad the for so many people, the Disney version of a classic story is the ONLY version. Disney often "prettified" his version of fairy tales, the originals being a lot darker. Just compare the Brothers Grimm version of some of the classic fairy tales to the Disney version.

[oMeriMombatti]

I am all for motion capture. The Apes trilogy is absolutely epic but here human faces on animals look so weird, it's off-putting. Tiger looks like it's having a laugh out there and Wolf seems to be on a death bed. Moreover the trailer itself is so bland and there's not even a single money shot in it. This is going to be a tough sell.