The Jungle Book Succeeds Where Jurassic World Failed

[suspsy]

http://moviefail.com/jungle-book-succeeds/

Jurassic World has no interest in evoking awe. It doesn't care about being beautiful. It wants to take you on a superficial trip down memory lane. The whole point is to simply remind you that Jurassic Park is a movie that exists, which it does successfully. But it could have been so much more. Like The Jungle Book, it could have looked at nature and used that as the starting point to create something truly wondrous. It doesn't even try. It does what's already been done to death, without a hint of creativity anywhere in its DNA. It's as dull as the grey, elephantine scaly skin of its dinosaurs.

I agree with this article 100%.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Going to see TJB later this week, but I've run across several kids who felt " awe" seeing JW.  What doesn't impress us anymore as adults doesn't mean they won't enjoy.  I honestly liked the movie myself at any rate.

[Patrx]

Excellent article! I haven't seen The Jungle Book yet, but from the previews I imagine that its animals run circles around JW's glassy-eyed cartoon dino-blobs. Kipling's writing lends itself well to an appropriately reverent view of wildlife, which is something that is not conveyed in a film that has no greater ambition than to thrill.

[Doug Watson]

Going to see TJB later this week, but I've run across several kids who felt " awe" seeing JW.  What doesn't impress us anymore as adults doesn't mean they won't enjoy.  I honestly liked the movie myself at any rate.

I am with you Blade and just to stir the pot TJB opening weekend $103,261,464 (USA) & JW opening weekend $204,600,000 (USA)........scoreboard!

[Silvanusaurus]

While I found Jurassic World immensely fun when I went to see it at the cinema, having re-watched it since, I shall admit, it is ultimately quite uninspiring. I think it's quite literally a 'theme park ride' that takes you through a 'Jurassic Park' experience, without the the same tension and impact of the 'real' Jurassic Park... More like a video-game adaptation or something, but harmless in itself. I'm going to see the Jungle Book tonight and I'm really hoping it will tell a much more engaging story than JW, as I'm often turned cold by overblown CGI imagery, we'll see...

[suspsy]

Going to see TJB later this week, but I've run across several kids who felt " awe" seeing JW.  What doesn't impress us anymore as adults doesn't mean they won't enjoy.  I honestly liked the movie myself at any rate.

I am with you Blade and just to stir the pot TJB opening weekend $103,261,464 (USA) & JW opening weekend $204,600,000 (USA)........scoreboard!

Box office receipts are meaningless when it comes to a film's quality, Doug. All four Transformers films have been blockbusters, after all.

[HD-man]

Going to see TJB later this week, but I've run across several kids who felt " awe" seeing JW.  What doesn't impress us anymore as adults doesn't mean they won't enjoy.  I honestly liked the movie myself at any rate.

I am with you Blade and just to stir the pot TJB opening weekend $103,261,464 (USA) & JW opening weekend $204,600,000 (USA)........scoreboard!

Box office receipts are meaningless when it comes to a film's quality, Doug. All four Transformers films have been blockbusters, after all.

I concur. In fact, the silliness of that comparison reminds me of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG0Hi-UDUZk

[Doug Watson]

I concur. In fact, the silliness of that comparison reminds me of this video

Okay so my opinion is "silly" is it. Well my opinion here is worth just as much as yours. Opinions are like you know what everyone has one.
The title of the link is about "success". We aren't talking about Citizen Cain here in either case and I would argue that to the investors in JW it was a success in fact anytime a movie makes back more that it cost to make it is a success. I know the hatred of JW comes from the fact that the dinosaurs aren't accurate and people are always waiting to pile on so I wasn't planning on getting into that debate my opinion was that I liked it and I agreed with Blade that it has awed a new generation and that is a valid opinion as much as yours. I pointed out the box office success somewhat tongue in cheek that is why I mentioned stir the pot. But in reality unless we are talking art films success can be judged by box office. I haven't seen TJB yet but I have already heard "opinions" that say it misses the mark compared to the original Disney cartoon. Plus we could always get into the inaccuracies in the animals in TJB like the bear and the wolves etc.
I will see TJB eventually but I think I'll keep my silly opinions on it to myself.

[tyrantqueen]

For the record, I liked JW but I never expected anything more for it to be a popcorn summer movie. I guess some people are still sore that they didn't feather the raptors I didn't think the Jungle Book needed a remake. The original Disney is still fine for me to watch, after all these years.

I also feel the need to laugh at the part criticising Jurassic World for "doing something that has been done to death" when this is an intellectual property that has had-what?- five or six adaptations of Kipling's book over the years. Pot kettle much?

Hollywood is being its usual uncreative self- remaking classics that don't need remakes. How about something fresh and new?

[Doug Watson]

Box office receipts are meaningless when it comes to a film's quality, Doug. All four Transformers films have been blockbusters, after all.

Again just my opinion but I disagree. The elitist critics would like us to believe that the great unwashed that is the public hasn't a clue what quality is and again in my opinion I disagree. I have never seen any of the Transformer Movies or Scrubs for that matter whatever that is but I could argue that the Transformer movies are high quality for their genre. There are lots of different genres in film and there are quality films and bad film made in every genre. I have read scathing reviews by critics and when I have seen the film I have totally enjoyed it and the reverse is true where critics have proclaimed a film the best thing since sliced bread but I left the theatre wishing I could get that time back. However one opinion that often does coincide with mine is that of the great unwashed so I will often use box office as a gage as to the "potential" quality of a film. First it has to be a subject and genre that I enjoy and then if John Q. Public likes it I will often give it a shot. I know that is contrary to what the all knowing movie elite would have me do but so be it. I have been watching movies going back to the silent films that used to show on the regular networks in the 60s but now only show up on TCM and to quote the Joker "I don't know what I like but I know art." (that is tongue in cheek BTW)

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[Gwangi]

Hollywood is being its usual uncreative self- remaking classics that don't need remakes. How about something fresh and new?

They do produce fresh and new material, it's just that no one is excited by it or goes to see it. The same people that complain about re-hashed material or movies based on known properties are the same people that go see them. And when something original comes out they say "I've never heard of that, I'll wait till the DVD, or I'll illegally download it". It's supply and demand.

[Takama]

Theres a lot of Movies i would like to see in theaters, but i just dont have the ability to do so.

I want to see this Jungle-book Movie, but money is low, and my mom just got out of surgery so she cant take me.

The last "original" movie I saw in theaters was Chappie, and i loved it more then anything else that I saw last year, because Everything else I got to see was a entry in a preexisting franchise, and nothing came close to besting Chappie in my eyes(Until i saw Starwars 7 but i got to see that because my Uncle invited me to see it with him.)  Chappie still ranks high among one of my favorite movies that have no sequels or remakes yet.

[Kovu]

I feel like comparisons between The Jungle Book and Jurassic World are like comparing apples and oranges. Disney always produces top quality product, and let's face it, Disney's whole shtick is wonder and awe, which The Jungle Book does very well. Jurassic World had some awe-inspiring moments, but the purpose of that film as to thrill. The Jungle Book wants you to say "Look at the rainforest in its untouched wonder", Jurassic World wants you to say "Look at the teeth it their untouchable ferocity". In that regard, both movies succeed in what they set out to do.

That being said, if you haven't seen The Jungle Book yet, drop whatever you are doing and go watch it now. AMAZING!

[Gwangi]

I really do want to see "The Jungle Book", but I probably won't. With a baby daughter it's hard to get out and see movies and what few movies we do see have to be high priority. Sorry to say it but "Civil War" takes priority over "The Jungle Book" for me. But it pains me that I probably won't see it on the big screen.

I loved "Jurassic World" but I will admit that it's probably due to nostalgia for the original film. I still maintain that it is the best JP sequel to date. I've re-watched it twice and still find it highly entertaining and enjoyable. It is what it is, basically a B rate popcorn flick. I love those movies, be they "The Valley of Gwangi" from 1969 or "Jurassic World" from 2015.
The final battle between the rex, Blue, and Indominus made me as giddy as I was when I saw "Jurassic Park" at 9 years old. When the rex walks out of its pen, those eyes glowing and the smoke rolling off the flair, it gave me goosebumps. As you're all aware, that image was my signature for a long time. I will concede however that the dinosaur designs were in not awe-inspired and quite bland. A missed opportunity in that department for sure.

[Silvanusaurus]

Ok, I've read the article, and I watched the Jungle Book at the cinema last night, and I feel the need to state my opinion that said article is ill-concieved, over-exaggerated and frankly, quite naive.
Firstly, the author seems to have expected something from the Jurassic Park franchise that has very little to no precedent, and was clearly not going to be present in Jurassic World, that is to say; a film dedicated to depicting the natural world. Not even the original Jurassic Park did this, sure, it evoked a sense of wonder at the creatures seen in the film, but ultimately it's aim was to provide a thrilling monster movie, and it did that. It was pretty darn evident from the first trailers for Jurassic World, that this was not going to be about real animals, in real environments, doing real things, and to have expected this was incredibly ridiculous, and displays an ignorance as to the very nature of big budget action cinema. The trailers clearly demonstrated visions of artificial CGI dinosaurs running around like deranged monsters, being battled with rocket launchers and antagonising Chris Pratt. That's what the film offered, that's what it delivered. It was fun, and a lot better than it could have been.
My second point concerns the Jungle Book itself... regarding which, any true sense of wonder or enchantment evoked by the natural world was utterly missing from almost the entire film. I severely disagree with the author of the article about the 'reality' of the animals and environments in this film, as at almost no point did they look like anything other than superficial CGI renderings. You can put endless amounts of detail into something like that, but it's not enough to make it look real, and this doesn't even come close to re-creating the wonder and depth of a real, tangible environment. It's too clean, too bright, too crisp, the lighting looks artificial, it can't escape the trademark CGI sheen of a video game. It certainly didn't make me feel engrossed, or even particularly impressed by the landscapes, and personally I think it's somewhat of a sad joke that something as artificial-looking as this is seriously considered as somehow comparible to the beauty and majesty of reality. All I need do is step outside my back door into the garden and the visuals of the Jungle Book are instantly forgotten as a superficial, overblown 'plastic' version of nature. As such, the film relies entirely on it's story-telling to impress, which was good, but nothing extraordinary or anything that really ads upon the original cartoon. The stand out sequence for me was King Louie's pursuit of Mowglie through the ruined temple, which was genuinely intense, and of all the scenes, looked the most 'real', which I imagine is because of the dark lighting.   
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the film for what it was, it's a solid family adventure movie, a couple of hours of fun, light entertainment, but no more or less of a shallow 'hollywood' experience than Jurassic World.

[btb300]

Well Jurassic Park is the one movie I have been carrying with me wherever I went in the last 6 or so years since I have had a portable media player to watch it on (I am at a point where I don't even need to carry it anymore, it plays in my head). I simply love the atmosphere and visuals of that iconic piece, not to mention the music and the sound effects. The only thing that could exceed this experience was reading the book itself last year. I had moderate expectations for Jurassic World being quite sceptical with Hollywood movies in general. I still think that they totally miss the point by trying to capture people with more and more CGI and monsters while getting the audience involved on an emotional level seems less important. What compares to the moment when the T-rex lowers its head to look into the car at the kids in the original movie? Although the total minutes of dinosaur shots are much lower than in JW, I would say they far more superior in comparison despite the 1992 computer technology.
What I find interesting how both the original book and movie and also JW stresses that dinosaurs are animals. Yet eventually they fail to depict them as such because they need them to chase people, making them basically stupid monsters. I'd not expect a real animal to behave that way, they usually attack humans only when they get cornered or an easy opportunity comes up to prey on them. But that irrational desire to chase and eat them at all costs seems very unnatural.
Regarding The Jungle Book I haven't seen it yet, and not planning on it either. Nowadays if I want to watch some clever, entertaining and visually pleasing movie I look for something from China or Japan. By the way in my opinion the depiction of nature in Studio Ghibli animated movies is way more realistic than in most CGI-loaded anything. They get the lights, shadows and colors right.

[CityRaptor]

Haven't see the ew Jungle Book, probably never will.  But how exactly can it be compared with JW? Is it even the same genre? Probably not.
Also, looking at the animals in the movie, especially Kaa, they really look fake:

They are probably more correct to the animal they are based on as opposed to JW's Dinosaurs, but you can still see that they are not real.

[Gwangi]

That snake does look particularly horrid.

[tyrantqueen]

Did they get the pronunciation of Mowgli's name right, this time?