I watched The Jungle Book on the plane when I flew back to Warsaw from Perth a couple of months ago, and I liked it a lot. The fact that the bear was modeled on a brown bear did really annoy me though, despite the fact that it was referred to as a sloth bear, and the accuracy of the other animals was pretty good.
Actually, the fact of Baloo being a brown bear is one of the very few faults of Rudyard Kipling, that specify clearly in the book that is a "brown bear", at least in the Spanish translated version that I learned almost by memory since childhood (one of my favourite novels ever, I'm in love with this book!). So is not a fault of the many films done based in this book. In India it should be a sloth bear.
Baloo is actually referred to as a sloth bear by one of the characters in the film though, something about sloth bears being lazy, which would suggest that the intention was to make him a sloth bear.
plus there are multiple interview accounts where Jon Favreau has talked about how they wanted the movie to be realistic and so made Baloo a sloth bear again.
OK according to what I heard they said they made nearly 70 separate species of animals native to India is this really true this what i know so far: bengal tiger indian wolf indian leopard brown bear (though supposed to be a sloth bear) reticulated python Gigantopithecus indian crested porcupine brahminy kite indian rhino water buffalo mugger crocodile blue-tailed bee eater long-eared jerboa (not found in india though) nilgai wild boar blackbuck indian roofed turtle indian peafowl indian giant squirrel indian elephant indian honeybee indian pangolin pygmy hog indian cuckoo (baby only) red and white giant flying squirrel (Petaurista alborufus castaneus) great hornbill plum headed parakeet hoopoe gray langur northern white-cheeked gibbon (not found in india though) hoolock gibbon northern pig-tailed macaque lion-tailed macaque golden langur rhesus macaque not sure about the species but what i saw: some black blue bird mongoose palm civet I don't the other 32 species does anyone know about it
I've seen a couple of references to the movie having 54 species of animal, so I'm not sure if there is a real total out there. There's a tree frog of some sort in there somewhere. The civets were Small Indian Civets - I had to watch the clip I saw a couple of times to work out what they were supposed to be. Here's an interesting article about why Mr. Pangolin was in the movie and why he got a bigger role than was originally intended: IFAW Q&A with The Jungle Book Director Jon Favreau | Huffington Post
Make the movie realistic?? Then they should start by deleting completely such an odd character as King Louie, given than the whole spirit of the book is based in that every animal of the jungle deprecates the Grey Monkeys (supposed to be Presbytis entellus) because they don't have a boss nor a law.
...and have failed because the "new" Baloo looks (still) like a brown bear, while the drawed one had/has at least a snout that COULD be the one of a sloth bear. By the way: I don't know if it was probably mentioned before, but the Gigantopithecus is extinct since at least about 10000 years ago. I'm quite sure that Kipling never thought at a Gigantopithecus when he wrote the role of King Louie (found somewhere that it should have been just a big kind/individual of macaque). And talking about macaques: Well, Wanderus/Lion-tailed Macaques occur in India, but they live in the Southwestern part of the subcontinent India, while many animals in the movie (like the one-horned rhinos, pygmy hogs, hoolock etc.) occur in Northeastern India (where - afaik - also the story is set). This is like puting an okapi to the coastal forests of Kenya. I can't describe how much I hate this new, loveless version of Jungle Book. And the destroying of glorious, unique movies go's on with the new version of Ben Hur (yes, I know the 1959-version of that story with Charlton Heston was also a remake of a silent movie, but was better not only in technic, but also in acting. The later is something you can't say about the new film seriously).
Just read the message just above yours. Kipling never wrote the role of King Louie, that is a Disney's invention, as far as I know. But I would be pleased if you demonstrate me the contrary.
Your right. There wasn't any king and any sort of hierarchy at those monkey tribe. What I meant was when "he wrote the role of the Bandar-logs" (I was too deep in the Disney characters at that moment, sorry). Also, I figured out that that I was wrong with the monkey species in Kiplings book. They (should) have been - as you wrote - grey langurs, not macaques. However, those corrections doesn't change the arguments against Gigantopithecus and have no influence to my opinion about the new movie...
Those corrections was intended for support your arguments against Gigantopithecus and share our common opinion about the new movie (but this movie is still better that the one with chimps and with an argument so different from the original movie, and also better than the Disney's one where Kaa is bad, Baloo is silly and monkeys are good and funny...)
Correct! Walt Disney created the character specifically for the musician Louie Prima, hence the name "King Louie." Upon hearing this, Prima supposedly said to Disney "You wanna make a monkey outta me?!?!?" Regarding the movie, I've now seen it and rather enjoyed it. Still don't think it needed Louie in it and there wasn't enough of Kaa.
I see we're still friends, although I'm not really sure which movie "with chimps" you exactly mean and in which "the monkeys are good and funny"? (I'm struggling with the translation. In the 1967-movie the monkeys are funny but not good...)
But you could say that about a lot of characters. Now I haven't had the opportunity to read the book yet (hope to soon) but I've seen both the Disney animated and live action film and I've always felt that much of the story and its characters need to be in it, especially in the new film. The story in its simplest form is of a man-cub named Mowgli being hunted by a Bengal Tiger named Shere Khan. On that basis Kaa, King Louie, the elephants, and perhaps even Baloo aren't necessary to the story. Their roles in this film are complete side stories to the main one, and only really Baloo and I suppose the elephants ever connect to it in the end. Bagheera and the wolves are important because they raised Mowgli, but the others (again with the possible exception of Baloo) don't need to be there. I'm not saying these characters or their stories are bad and that they shouldn't be in the movie (I mean can you imagine a Jungle Book story without Baloo?) but it just seems like a lot of the characters are sort of there. ~Thylo
you should read the book All the characters are interwoven (Mowgli, the wolves, Bagheera, Shere Khan, Kaa, Baloo, the Bandar-Log, etc) and all need to be there - none are incidental to the story. The Disney version departs from the book significantly, as may be imagined because they were turning it into a childrens' cartoon. King Louie is not in the original book - as said above and several times previously in the thread - he was invented for the animated Disney movie to add humour. It seems they "needed" to retain him for this movie because it is an adaption of the animated one, and so to get around it they made him into a Gigantopithecus which sort of satisfies the general audience because he is still there and also the nerds because they have a better explanation why he is still there (even though it is a major stretch ). So, read the book. @Kakapo and zoomaniac, if you re-read the thread you'll see I already agreed with you about Baloo not resembling a sloth bear in the slightest, and the inclusion of King Louie.
I looked for the book at my school's library today incidentally, but while they said they have it and isn't checked out I didn't find it. Good to hear that it's all interwoven. Yeah I've known about Louie for a while, makes sense if you consider he's the one majorly out of place species and the only animal with a non-Indian sounding name His inclusion might also be to separate this movie from Andy Serkis' movie which is coming out at some point. ~Thylo
While you're at it, see if you can get a hold of Kipling's "Just-So Stories." An excellent set of short stories that I'm surprised have never been made into a movie.
Just So Stories is a great book! Not sure it would work as a movie treatment though. How would you do that, short of turning them into Disney cartoons? Oh wait...
Sorry, I don't know the year and author of each version.... "The Jungle Book" with chimps is made with real actors, nothing is done with computer. Here the chimps representate the Bandar-Log and the whole history is very far from the original purpose of the book: it's about Mowgly trying to come back with the humans, his biological parents seems to be rich colonnial people (actually they was very poor native Indians), he fall in love with a girl and it appear a train (never a train appear in the book, horses was the only way of transport). The movie where the Bandar-Log are depicted as funny and good are the Disney's one with animated characters. Here nobody deprecate and hate the monkeys as it should be. And also the basic history is about Mowgli don't feeling adapted to the Jungle and trying to come back with humans (very far from the purpose of Kipling) and also here fall in love with a girl (that never appeared at the book, Kipling only mention extremely vaguely a girl that pass near Mowgli and he hides for not be discovered, never wishing anything romantic with her, and from just a line after the girl never is mentioned again).
...meanwhile, in other Jungle Book news, the 2017 Andy Serkis version has been pushed back to October 2018 - two years away. This is a good thing from both audience and studio perspectives because it should avoid confusion between the two - but now Disney has already started talking about a sequel to the current version! Andy Serkis' movie, previously entitled Jungle Book: Origins has been retitled just as Jungle Book (the current one is titled The Jungle Book) - so potentially there will be a Jungle Book and The Jungle Book 2 out at much the same time. Apparently Serkis' movie is intended to be darker and scarier than Disney's one, although given Serkis' tendencies I think it will fall more towards slapstick than anything. I just hope they take more from the original book in an attempt to distance themselves from Disney. That could only be a good thing.
