gloves movie debates Movies Gloves Has Actually Seen Debate #6: The Jungle Book (Like, all of them)

[Gloves | 11,800]

 

I really love the story of the Jungle Book. As ever, the books are the main attraction, but I was certainly introduced to them by the cartoon as a kid. And having read them I later watched (and enjoyed a lot!) the live action film when it came out. When Mowgli's Story happened I watched it, but don't recall watching it many times like the prior two films. And when the new (2016) movie came out I saw it in theatres with my wife and enjoyed it a lot! 

I imagine most people are familiar with the  '67 cartoon movie, but am curious if anyone remembers any of the others fondly? 

"I am not a man! I am not an animal..." *runs off into the forest*
- Mowgli the adult human male

I fuckin' love the 1994 live action movie, man. Lol.

 

 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,550]

I remember the 1994 version, and I'd be down to finally watch it.

The STV 1997 film and the live action remake?  Pass, which is something I'll rarely say.

[Gloves | 11,800]

Just now, Reed Rothchild said:

I remember the 1994 version, and I'd be down to finally watch it.

The STV 1997 film and the live action remake?  Pass, which is something I'll rarely say.

Please do go watch it! I think you'll like it a lot tbh, it's my favourite of the bunch.

[Brickman | 3,995]

I've seen the cartoon and then the 2016 version and both are definitely worth watching. I really had low expectations for the 2016 live action but it's surprisingly really good.

Never heard of the other two but I'm really interested in watching that 1998 movie. Something about STV stuff always interests me. They're normally super cheesy but always manage to surprise me.

[doner24 | 1,197]

Love the OG, no interest in the others. 

[Sumez | 2,968]

The only live action version of Jungle Book I've seen was the 2018 one directed by Andy Serkis, but it's missing from your polls of "like all of them" :3

The 60s cartoon adaptation is a classic obviously. Lots of memorable songs, especially King Louie's song is a riot that's livened up many a party even in my adult life.
As a movie it's not actually that great, and of course the animation was a massive step down compared to earlier Disney movies. I think Sleeping Beauty was the first one that marked a change to a notably lower budget style? But overall I think Jungle Book fares better than most of the other "budget era" Disney features, outside of Aristocats and maybe Sword in the Stone.

Having grown up with it like many of the other animated features, it's hard to really judge the move objectively.

[Gloves | 11,800]

1 minute ago, Sumez said:

The only live action version of Jungle Book I've seen was the 2018 one directed by Andy Serkis, but it's missing from your polls of "like all of them" :3

The 60s cartoon adaptation is a classic obviously. Lots of memorable songs, especially King Louie's song is a riot that's livened up many a party even in my adult life.
As a movie it's not actually that great, and of course the animation was a massive step down compared to earlier Disney movies. I think Sleeping Beauty was the first one that marked a change to a notably lower budget style? But overall I think Jungle Book fares better than most of the other "budget era" Disney features, outside of Aristocats and maybe Sword in the Stone.

Having grown up with it like many of the other animated features, it's hard to really judge the move objectively.

"like" all of them, as in basically, or more or less, almost even. 

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

I saw the original as a kid. I didn't really care for it so I don't have any interest in the others.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,550]

8 hours ago, Sumez said:

I think Sleeping Beauty was the first one that marked a change to a notably lower budget style?

With a production budget of $6 million, Sleeping Beauty was the most expensive Disney film at the time of its release and over twice as expensive as each of the preceding three Disney animated features—Alice in Wonderland (1951), Peter Pan (1953), and Lady and the Tramp (1955).

[RH | 4,924]

I just watched the trailer to the 1997 one.  I honestly can’t tell if I’ve seen it or not.  I don’t recall a single thing, and yet, it feels strangely familiar.

[Gloves | 11,800]

1 minute ago, RH said:

I just watched the trailer to the 1997 one.  I honestly can’t tell if I’ve seen it or not.  I don’t recall a single thing, and yet, it feels strangely familiar.

Like a Deja vu dreeeaaammmm. 

[Sumez | 2,968]

19 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

With a production budget of $6 million, Sleeping Beauty was the most expensive Disney film at the time of its release and over twice as expensive as each of the preceding three Disney animated features—Alice in Wonderland (1951), Peter Pan (1953), and Lady and the Tramp (1955).

Hrm, was it 101 Dalmatians then? 

[Gloves | 11,800]

3 minutes ago, Sumez said:

Hrm, was it 101 Dalmatians then? 

~$4m budget.

[Link | 2,715]

3 minutes ago, Sumez said:

Hrm, was it 101 Dalmatians then? 

That one definitely had the sketchier, looser, less polished style of drawing. I actually like the way it looks. 

[glazball | 170]

Yes, 101 Dalmatians used xerography to keep costs down.  Sleeping Beauty, Disney's previous film, is one of the most gorgeously animated movies ever made, but cost a fortune to make.  It was the end of an era - the last big animated production in Walt Disney's lifetime.

[Sumez | 2,968]

I've actually only ever watched Sleeping Beauty once, and I barely remember it, so I guess that's why I misplaced it. It's definitely one of the most boring classic animated Disney movies, so I can sort of understand how it represented the end of an era.

I don't really mind the simpler style of movies like Jungle Book, Robin Hood, etc. They are still quite nice, but man look at how absolutely gorgous something like Pinocchio looks.

Its budget was reportedly only $2.6 million, so I guess it's not about money, but about how much cheap labour you can abuse.

[Tulpa | 3,517]

3 hours ago, Sumez said:

Its budget was reportedly only $2.6 million, so I guess it's not about money, but about how much cheap labour you can abuse

Only? In 1940, the average live action features were budgeted at $400,000. In fact, Pinocchio cost more than Fantasia. Disney films were fairly expensive. Not as much as the golden age epics, but higher than average definitely (for comparison, Gone with the Wind cost $3,850,000 or thereabouts.)

"Cheap" feature animation would be something like Fleischer Studios' Gulliver's Travels, which was $700,000.

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Tulpa

[Sumez | 2,968]

I was joking

[Kguillemette | 1,545]

The 1994 movie with Carey Elwes is very good and underrated. It's feels like an Indiana Jones style adventure.

[spacepup | 2,405]

I've seen a few of them and like the original of course.

I saw the recent live action remake, and honestly, I thought it was decent and cute.  I remember a lot of people having problems with it when it came out, but I enjoyed it.

[Tabonga | 2,324]

No love for Sabu?