Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Jungle Book ( the Movie )

Photographer

Garry k

Posts: 30129

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Amazing ( CGI ) Visuals and an Entertaining Story

Going into it I was a bit skeptical of the "talking animals " aspect of the movie - but it overall worked pretty well

Best seen in 3 D IMAX

think i might actually see it again this week

May 08 16 02:15 pm Link

Photographer

Jay2G Photography

Posts: 2570

Highland, Michigan, US

Garry k wrote:
Amazing ( CGI ) Visuals and an Entertaining Story

Going into it I was a bit skeptical of the "talking animals " aspect of the movie - but it overall worked pretty well

Best seen in 3 D IMAX

think i might actually see it again this week

I took my son to go see it last weekend. We both enjoyed it.  CGI and overall look was amazing.

May 08 16 02:23 pm Link

Photographer

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY

Posts: 6597

Uniontown, Pennsylvania, US

not interested.
The 1967 original will always be My favorite, I would have been 6 at the time of its release and can still recite most of the songs today with Baloo the Bear being the coolest cartoon character I can think of ever. .

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPBKZOsUYAAZ-4a.png. .

way to mess up a good thing IMO

May 08 16 02:25 pm Link

Photographer

Randy Poe

Posts: 1638

Green Cove Springs, Florida, US

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
not interested.
The 1967 original will always be My favorite, I would have been 6 at the time of its release and can still recite most of the songs today with Baloo the Bear being the coolest cartoon character I can think of ever. .

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPBKZOsUYAAZ-4a.png. .

way to mess up a good thing IMO

Then you should reconsider it, all the more reason to go and see it. they did not forget there was an original and did a lot to show respect to it IMO.

Do not leave during credits for at least a couple songs. and if you dont dance your way out the door then I just dont even know what to do with you.

May 09 16 12:44 am Link

Photographer

martin b

Posts: 2770

Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines

went to see it because it was produced by the mighty Jon Favreau.  Definitely one of the best movies of the year.  If you like his films you will enjoy this.

May 09 16 03:00 am Link

Photographer

Brian Diaz

Posts: 65617

Danbury, Connecticut, US

I'm always surprised when people refer to the 1967 Jungle Book as "original." 

The original was 1894.  And it's better than the 1967 version.

May 09 16 12:34 pm Link

Photographer

Peter Claver

Posts: 27130

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Brian Diaz wrote:
I'm always surprised when people refer to the 1967 Jungle Book as "original." 

The original was 1894.  And it's better than the 1967 version.

People like to whine and complain about all the remakes and reboots and how "hollywood has run out of ideas".  They forget (or never knew) that such things (as well as adaptations from books and plays and such) have been happening for as long as there have been movies.

I also never understood the notion that a new movie is going to ruin or "mess up" an old one.  It makes no sense at all.   The 1967 movie is still available.  They didn't change it.

May 09 16 01:30 pm Link

Photographer

rmcapturing

Posts: 4859

San Francisco, California, US

I thought the voice acting was exceptional. Probably my favorite voice acting of any movie I've watched. I'm not a Bill Murray fan but I thought he was great. I saw it in IMAX 3D also, great experience. I generally prefer Cinemark XD because I think IMAX screens are a little much but I'm glad I saw it in IMAX 3D.

I haven't watched any other Jungle Book movie or read the book so I don't have that nostalgic factor or emotional attachment to tarnish my experience.

May 09 16 09:07 pm Link

Photographer

Justin

Posts: 22389

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

I'm a fan of the original story, and I can't imagine how that could be rendered effectively without CG. I mean, since those animals talked and all.

I'm looking forward to it. I'm hoping it stays relatively true to the story.

May 09 16 09:10 pm Link

Photographer

martin b

Posts: 2770

Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines

Justin wrote:
I'm a fan of the original story, and I can't imagine how that could be rendered effectively without CG. I mean, since those animals talked and all.

I'm looking forward to it. I'm hoping it stays relatively true to the story.

it still has the songs in it.  That really made my day.

May 10 16 02:23 am Link

Photographer

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY

Posts: 6597

Uniontown, Pennsylvania, US

Brian Diaz wrote:
I'm always surprised when people refer to the 1967 Jungle Book as "original." 

The original was 1894.  And it's better than the 1967 version.

fully aware of the Book, I own a copy.

The thread title references 'the Movie'

May 10 16 05:34 am Link