The Jungle Book Succeeds Where Jurassic World Failed

[suspsy]

I highly doubt that any creature in TJB will be as iconic as the Indominus Rex for example.

Please. Shere Khan was an icon long before the Freakasaurus reared its ugly head.

[Newt]

I haven't seen either film and have no dog in the fight. However, this discussion makes me yearn for a film about the natural world that really takes it seriously, in the way that films like the original Star Wars trilogy, the Lord of the Rings, and Avatar took their fictional worlds. That sense of a fully-realized and lovingly-rendered world is a major part of those films' appeal to me, and part of what disappoints me about many other big-budget films where the same level of passion does not show through in the design and production of the film.

[btb300]

I haven't seen either film and have no dog in the fight. However, this discussion makes me yearn for a film about the natural world that really takes it seriously, in the way that films like the original Star Wars trilogy, the Lord of the Rings, and Avatar took their fictional worlds. That sense of a fully-realized and lovingly-rendered world is a major part of those films' appeal to me, and part of what disappoints me about many other big-budget films where the same level of passion does not show through in the design and production of the film.

Do you mean a documentary?Because there are quite a few beautiful pieces both new and old. Just look up David Attenborough's films or "Le Peuple Migrateur", or the series titled The Human Planet, or Planet Earth by BBC, or Home which is on YouTube.
If you mean non-documentary movies that try to visualize nature in all it's beauty and complexity, well I don't know... There are movies with beatiful landscape shots (The Fall would be a good example) and I like the natural atmosphere created in A River Runs Trhough It. If you find anything good let us know, I am interested.

[Silvanusaurus]

There are many films that capture the beauty, majesty and 'reality' of nature, they just aren't in the mainstream, because the majority of film-goers have a very narrow minded view of what makes a film enjoyable, and most things that actually take time and effort to evoke powerful atmosphere are dismissed as 'boring' or even 'pointless'.

[SBell]

There are many films that capture the beauty, majesty and 'reality' of nature, they just aren't in the mainstream, because the majority of film-goers have a very narrow minded view of what makes a film enjoyable, and most things that actually take time and effort to evoke powerful atmosphere are dismissed as 'boring' or even 'pointless'.

The Good Dinosaur did a good job of capturing the majesty and beauty of nature in a 'mainstream' movie* (the effort they put in on the set designs and backgrounds was incredible)--it just did a lousy job of depicting the living creatures within it, and had a silly, derivative story.

_{*I almost wrote 'popular' movie but that wouldn't exactly be correct...!}

[HD-man]

Just to clarify, I never said that anyone's opinion is silly, just that using box office receipts to imply film quality is silly. Like Suspsy said, "All four Transformers films have been blockbusters". Likewise, The Secret of NIMH "underperformed at the box office, but was favorably received by critics" ( https://plotandtheme.com/2015/10/28/the-animation-of-don-bluth-part-i-leaving-disney-and-early-independence-1979-1984/ ).

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.

Actually, while not exactly the same, they do overlap (I.e. They're both action films & adventure films).

Also, looking at the animals in the movie, especially Kaa, they really look fake:

No more so than JW's "cloud of fog in the shape of a dinosaur" ( http://thatguywiththeglasses.wikia.com/wiki/Jurassic_World ).

I highly doubt that any creature in TJB will be as iconic as the Indominus Rex for example.

Please. Shere Khan was an icon long before the Freakasaurus reared its ugly head.

This.

[tyrantqueen]

This whole discussion is (imo) ridiculous.

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[btb300]

There are many films that capture the beauty, majesty and 'reality' of nature, they just aren't in the mainstream, because the majority of film-goers have a very narrow minded view of what makes a film enjoyable, and most things that actually take time and effort to evoke powerful atmosphere are dismissed as 'boring' or even 'pointless'.

I would love to hear some recommendations from you or others, I'm having a hard time finding movies worth spending precious free time on, and often just end up rewatching something I like.

[Doug Watson]

Just to clarify, I never said that anyone's opinion is silly, just that using box office receipts to imply film quality is silly. Like Suspsy said, "All four Transformers films have been blockbusters". Likewise, The Secret of NIMH "underperformed at the box office, but was favorably received by critics" ( https://plotandtheme.com/2015/10/28/the-animation-of-don-bluth-part-i-leaving-disney-and-early-independence-1979-1984/ ).

In my first post I didn't mean to imply film quality by box office, what I was implying was "success" since that was the point of the thread. I also referred to "success" in my first response. In my third response I did say that I will often use box office as a gage as to the "potential" quality of a film and I emphasized "potential". That along with who has been involved in the production, i.e. producers, directors, actors etc, and the subject matter will help me decide whether or not to see a film. There are lots of genres that I have no interest in seeing like low brow potty humour or slasher/torture films etc. No matter how popular they are I will never go see them. Obviously the views of the public segment that prefers that type of film are different from mine. However when a film in the genre that I like comes along and seems to have quality people behind it and develops a "buzz" in the general public my view of that public opinion is obviously higher than yours. Box office or "star" ratings on web sites are just additional tools to use in determining my viewing on a film that I am on the fence about and I find it arrogant for someone to tell me that is a silly thing to do. Some films I will see no matter what the box office says because it is either made by people that I respect or deals with a subject that I love.
As far as the Jungle Book is concerned I do plan on seeing it and I hope it exceeds my expectations. I am just tired of the continual bashing of the JP brand, in the case of the article that sparked this discussion it wasn't even written by a cinema critic, it was written by a student who hopes to be a palaeontologist someday. We get it, a lot of the people out there want dinosaurs that look and act the way they want them. Just happens it may not be the best formula to make money from a big budget commercial film. But again that is just my opinion.

[Newt]

Do you mean a documentary?Because there are quite a few beautiful pieces both new and old. Just look up David Attenborough's films or "Le Peuple Migrateur", or the series titled The Human Planet, or Planet Earth by BBC, or Home which is on YouTube.
If you mean non-documentary movies that try to visualize nature in all it's beauty and complexity, well I don't know... There are movies with beatiful landscape shots (The Fall would be a good example) and I like the natural atmosphere created in A River Runs Trhough It. If you find anything good let us know, I am interested.

I meant specifically a feature film (not a documentary - you're right, there are many wonderful nature docs), and more specifically a special-effects-heavy film like those that dominate the box office these days. I'd like to see that technology used to create the same sense of wonder for the real world that it can for made-up worlds. There's a quote about the function of art being to make the strange familiar and the familiar strange...I guess that's sort of what I'm getting at.

[btb300]

I meant specifically a feature film (not a documentary - you're right, there are many wonderful nature docs), and more specifically a special-effects-heavy film like those that dominate the box office these days. I'd like to see that technology used to create the same sense of wonder for the real world that it can for made-up worlds. There's a quote about the function of art being to make the strange familiar and the familiar strange...I guess that's sort of what I'm getting at.

Well I can't see why they should rely on CGI when they van just point a camera at it. Also many times CGI is used it is so well-integrated that it's almost impossible to detect. And in this case how do you tell if it's not used in a way you would like to see it?
Just have a look at this video, it's quite interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

[suspsy]

We get it, a lot of the people out there want dinosaurs that look and act the way they want them. Just happens it may not be the best formula to make money from a big budget commercial film. But again that is just my opinion.

Sorry, Doug, but I don't buy that reasoning for a second. That's no different from someone saying back in the early 1990s' that the active, fast-moving dinosaurs from the original JP film aren't the best formula to make money from a big budget film. I believe the movie-going public is more than willing to accept modern depictions. It's the studios that need to wake up and grow a pair. And shell out the cash for better CGI while they're at it. There was no excuse for the JW Pteranodons to look so much worse than the ones in JP3.

Don't get me wrong, I'll always cherish the original film, but the franchise really is a pale shadow of its former self these days. JW coasted to its box office success largely due to nostalgia as opposed to actual film quality. This article is just one in a long series pointing out the glaring shortcomings. And the toyline is just plain bad.

[Doug Watson]

We get it, a lot of the people out there want dinosaurs that look and act the way they want them. Just happens it may not be the best formula to make money from a big budget commercial film. But again that is just my opinion.

Sorry, Doug, but I don't buy that reasoning for a second. That's no different from someone saying back in the early 1990s' that the active, fast-moving dinosaurs from the original JP film aren't the best formula to make money from a big budget film. I believe the movie-going public is more than willing to accept modern depictions. It's the studios that need to wake up and grow a pair. And shell out the cash for better CGI while they're at it. There was no excuse for the JW Pteranodons to look so much worse than the ones in JP3.

Don't get me wrong, I'll always cherish the original film, but the franchise really is a pale shadow of its former self these days. JW coasted to its box office success largely due to nostalgia as opposed to actual film quality. This article is just one in a long series pointing out the glaring shortcomings. And the toyline is just plain bad.

Personally I find arguments over movies to be no win situations since it basically comes down to personal opinion, if you didn't like it there is nothing I will say that will sway you and likewise there is nothing you will say that will take anything away from my enjoyment. I have mentioned in past JW discussions that I did have some disappointments in it such as the lack of practical dinosaurs that meant this movie lacked the organic interaction between the actors and actual creatures on the set. The Mosasaur initially was off putting because of its size but in the end it was necessary for the climax and its size and the look of all the dinosaurs was explained to my satisfaction by Dr. Wu. I believe the original producers of JP did grow a pair because they showed dinosaurs for the first time as fast moving, complex and believable screen entities. Now the look of those dinosaurs is etched in the minds of a fan base that may be put off by a drastic change. I am sure they debated feathering the raptors and possibly the T rex but in the end they decided to stay true to the brand and explain away the inaccuracies which they did. Were they correct, well until The Force Awakens came along JW held onto box office records for an opening weekend and it is still top five in all time box office. Producers judge success by box office not forum debates so I am sure they feel they made the right choice.
I enjoyed the film for what it is, entertainment. I am a fan of good horror films (the ones that don't rely on gore), fantasy and Sci Fi so I didn't mind that JW is more of an action horror film. However whether intended or not I felt empathy for the Indominus rex so as a character it succeeded in pulling me in. Yes the movie has its failings, no it isn't the equal of JP but I enjoyed it and I am looking forward to a next instalment. I am one of those movie fans that loves sequels to movies they love, I just can't get enough of Star Wars or Jurassic Park.
I think what people like the author of the article that this thread is based on want is a documentary and unfortunately those don't translate into blockbusters they are better suited to the Discovery channel. I would love one of these critics to actually write out a commercially viable plot for a JP and put it out there, it is a lot easier to say than to do.
But like I said I know I haven't swayed any JW detractors so that is all I have to say about that.

[btb300]

Jurassic World can be entertaining if you don't think too har about how much better/more it could have been. And I am not even talking about the plot, because even though it's predictible, well watching JP the 20th time offers also relativiley little surprise. It's the lack of tension, excitement and involvement that bothered me the most. I don't like when wisecracks and explosions take up too much screentime (thinking about it we had none of the latter in JP, did we?). What I enjoyed the most was probably the appearance of B.D. Wong and his cahareacters reflections on the park and dinosaurs. It reminded me on the JP book where he had an important role as a philosophic counterpart of Malcolm, I think it was a nice touch to bring him back (in agreement with Doug here).
Returning to the original topic I still think that there are occasional movies that make us marvel at nature's beauty because of it's sceneries, colors etc. but not at it's complexity or ingenuinity, that can be rarely integrated into the plot. Maybe if the late Gerald Durrell had directed movies instead of writing books (not that I would trade those books for any movie).

[Arioch]

I highly doubt that any creature in TJB will be as iconic as the Indominus Rex for example.

Please. Shere Khan was an icon long before the Freakasaurus reared its ugly head.

Sorry, I was talking in terms of design. The old Disney Shere Khan had an iconic design, this new one is "just" a Tiger.

In terms of design, isn't the Indominus just a shrink wrapped Allosaurus with an extra finger?

I didn't hate JW, but the new monster wasn't something that specially sticks with you any more than say, "Rudy" from Ice Age 3. It didn't even get a very dignifying demise, I almost got the sense that the movie  at the end hated its own creation.

[Kovu]

I think that was the point though. The Indominus never should've existed in the first place because it was a mutation. It was an unnatural creation.
The movie made it quite clear that, by tampering with nature, by trying to design something with more teeth, more snarl, more aggression,  it ended up backfiring on the designers and the park.

Personally, that's why I've never had a problem the Indominus because its unnatural/freak-of-natureness was key to the narrative. I always viewed it as symbolic of society, particularly science, often times doing something solely because they can, without stopping to think if they should. The Indominus shouldn't have been created, but they could so they did.

Please. Shere Khan was an icon long before the Freakasaurus reared its ugly head.

This x1000. The I-rex is so out of Shere Khan's league that it's playing a different sport.

[Takama]

I highly doubt that any creature in TJB will be as iconic as the Indominus Rex for example.

Please. Shere Khan was an icon long before the Freakasaurus reared its ugly head.

Sorry, I was talking in terms of design. The old Disney Shere Khan had an iconic design, this new one is "just" a Tiger.

In terms of design, isn't the Indominus just a shrink wrapped Allosaurus with an extra finger?

I didn't hate JW, but the new monster wasn't something that specially sticks with you any more than say, "Rudy" from Ice Age 3. It didn't even get a very dignifying demise, I almost got the sense that the movie  at the end hated its own creation.

Welll one paleontologist thinks the whole movie Hates Its Audience

https://pseudoplocephalus.com/2015/06/16/why-does-jurassic-world-hate-dinosaurs/

Please disregard the Sexist arguments in this article,

[HD-man]

Welll one paleontologist thinks the whole movie Hates Its Audience

https://pseudoplocephalus.com/2015/06/16/why-does-jurassic-world-hate-dinosaurs/

Please disregard the Sexiest arguments in this article,

So what are the least sexy arguments in that article? 

Seriously, though, why disregard them?

[Takama]

Welll one paleontologist thinks the whole movie Hates Its Audience

https://pseudoplocephalus.com/2015/06/16/why-does-jurassic-world-hate-dinosaurs/

Please disregard the Sexist arguments in this article,

So what are the least sexy arguments in that article? 

Seriously, though, why disregard them?

Oh crap i meant Sexist arguments.  Yikes thats going to sting a little