It will be interesting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look for the bare necessities
The simple bare necessities
Forget about your worries and your strife
I mean the bare necessities
Old Mother Nature's recipes
That bring the bare necessities of life
Wherever I wander, wherever I roam
I couldn't be fonder of my big home
The bees are buzzin' in the tree
To make some honey just for me
When you look under the rocks and plants
And take a glance at the fancy ants
Then maybe try a few
The bare necessities of life will come to you
They'll come to you!
Look for the bare necessities
The simple bare necessities
Forget about your worries and your strife
I mean the bare necessities
That's why a bear can rest at ease
With just the bare necessities of life
Now when you pick a paw-paw
Or a prickly pear
And you prick a raw paw
Next time beware
Don't pick the prickly pear by the paw
When you pick a pear
Try to use the claw
But you don't need to use the claw
When you pick a pear of the big paw-paw
Have I given you a clue ?
The bare necessities of life will come to you
They'll come to you!
Oh, man, this is really ...
So just try and relax, yeah cool it
Fall apart in my backyard
'Cause let me tell you something little britches
If you act like that bee acts, uh uh
You're working too hard
And don't spend your time lookin' around
For something you want that can't be found
When you find out you can live without it
And go along not thinkin' about it
I'll tell you something true
The bare necessities of life will come to you
Look for the bare necessities
The simple bare necessities
Forget about your worries and your strife
(yeah, man!)
I mean the bare necessities
That's why a bear can rest at ease
With just the bare necessities of life
(yeah!)
With just the bare necessities of life
(yeah, man!)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, though, I don't see the point in this movie. I guess I'm not the target audience.
It looks to be Disney's latest thing - making live action versions of their own animated classics. They did Cinderella. Now Jungle Book.
As for target audience, I'd say it depends. They'll primarily go for the nostalgia route - people who remember these movies from their childhood, as well as the new audience route, people with small children. In me, they have both.....
|
To be honest, though, I don't see the point in this movie. I guess I'm not the target audience.It looks to be Disney's latest thing - making live action versions of their own animated classics. They did Cinderella. Now Jungle Book.
As for target audience, I'd say it depends. They'll primarily go for the nostalgia route - people who remember these movies from their childhood, as well as the new audience route, people with small children. In me, they have both.....
But this movie really has next to nothing in common with the movie from our childhoods. A grim, action oriented CGI fest just really can't generate the same feeling as the animated musical did.
I get that Disney can no longer genuinly create the same kind of sweet innocence that was the baseline for all their classics, and I appreciate that they are trying something new instead of clinging to their old model out of tradition, but... the direction they went for just isn't for me. I think Pixar, as a contrast, do an incredible job of reinventing themselves as the years pass without ever stopping to make fantastic movies for kids.
I won't show my future potential children the Disney live action recreation of the classics - but I will definitely show them Inside Out, WALL E, Up, Toy Story (all of them), and so on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But this movie really has next to nothing in common with the movie from our childhoods. A grim, action oriented CGI fest just really can't generate the same feeling as the animated musical did.
It sure did look more like the old animated movie that the previous live version from a few years back. And we can't really be sure how much grim action there is, since the only thing we've seen is a trailer.
I get that Disney can no longer genuinly create the same kind of sweet innocence that was the baseline for all their classics, and I appreciate that they are trying something new instead of clinging to their old model out of tradition, but... the direction they went for just isn't for me. I think Pixar, as a contrast, do an incredible job of reinventing themselves as the years pass without ever stopping to make fantastic movies for kids.
You do realize that Disney does still put out animated movies that are big hits? All told, since 2010, they've put out one per year - for a world wide gross of over $3 billion (if Wikipedia is accurate). One of those was even Winnie the Pooh (granted, it only made about $33 million), which is one of the quintessential "sweet innocence" stories. The others were Tangled (2010), Wreck-it Ralph (2012), Frozen (2013), and Big Hero 6 (2014). That also seems a pretty good example of "reinventing themselves", while at the same time staying close to their old-school success with myth and fable. Should I even bother pointing out that Disney has owned Pixar since 2006.
|
|
But this movie really has next to nothing in common with the movie from our childhoods. A grim, action oriented CGI fest just really can't generate the same feeling as the animated musical did.It sure did look more like the old animated movie that the previous live version from a few years back. And we can't really be sure how much grim action there is, since the only thing we've seen is a trailer.
I get that Disney can no longer genuinly create the same kind of sweet innocence that was the baseline for all their classics, and I appreciate that they are trying something new instead of clinging to their old model out of tradition, but... the direction they went for just isn't for me. I think Pixar, as a contrast, do an incredible job of reinventing themselves as the years pass without ever stopping to make fantastic movies for kids.You do realize that Disney does still put out animated movies that are big hits? All told, since 2010, they've put out one per year - for a world wide gross of over $3 billion (if Wikipedia is accurate). One of those was even Winnie the Pooh (granted, it only made about $33 million), which is one of the quintessential "sweet innocence" stories. The others were Tangled (2010), Wreck-it Ralph (2012), Frozen (2013), and Big Hero 6 (2014). That also seems a pretty good example of "reinventing themselves", while at the same time staying close to their old-school success with myth and fable. Should I even bother pointing out that Disney has owned Pixar since 2006.
We've only seen the trailer, but unless they are going for some major bait-and-switch, the movie will be of a grim tone and will have big budget action scenes. That's what the trailer evokes in the viewer. Isn't it?
As for Disney and movies and such, Pixar is theirs and so is Marvel and now the Star Wars franchise. From what I know Pixar still maintain a fair bit of autonomy and you can still treat their movies as their own thing. Disney is a conglomerate at this point.
But yeah, sure, I guess I should have been more specific. I don't like the new live action Disney retellings of their classics. They do not appeal to me and I can see scarce reason for their existence.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of those Disney classics themselves retold stories from books. And those books retold stories passed down through folklore.
I've no doubt that people at every step of the way were saying the equivalent of "I don't like the new versions of X, they do not appeal to me, and I can see scarce reason for their existence."
|
|
We've only seen the trailer, but unless they are going for some major bait-and-switch, the movie will be of a grim tone and will have big budget action scenes. That's what the trailer evokes in the viewer. Isn't it?
I'm guessing you're right, insofar as there will likely be more some more action and a more gritty, realistic tone. However, I'm guessing we'll also see a fair bit of humor, considering they given one of the main roles, Baloo the Bear, to one of the greatest comedic actors of this era, Bill Murray. Also, while Christopher Walken (King Louie) is normally grim and psycho, he does have a gift for humor that's often underestimated. Plus, they're playing against a very young Mowgli, I'd bet there'll be some good quips and jokes they've got for him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how this will do. Did they do a Snow White one?
I didn't really care for Maleficent all that much, but I think it did well.
My spouse really liked Cinderella and wants to pick it up, so I imagine that did well.
I suppose they are doing the re-tellings of their older movies because they are making money off of them.
As a side shoot, I did watch the Disney Channel Descendants, I actually enjoyed that...that was more of a conglomerate of their old villains in a new light with their kids though.
Checked with my spouse and she really really wants to see this new Jungle Book.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of those Disney classics themselves retold stories from books. And those books retold stories passed down through folklore.
I've no doubt that people at every step of the way were saying the equivalent of "I don't like the new versions of X, they do not appeal to me, and I can see scarce reason for their existence."
Sure. And those people at each step of the way may have been right, as far as their personal preferences are concerned. This isn't some case of technophobia or adherence to the good ol' way. It is merely me, saying that what I liked about the previous movies was their colorfulness, the songs and the good overall atmosphere (combined with the willingness to include bad things that happen - see Lion King and Hunchback of Notredame, my two favorites). I don't really care about the actual story of The Jungle Book all that much, so the new versions aren't for me. As I said, I appreciate it that Disney are trying new things, I like the concept, but the specific new direction they are heading does no interest me at all.
TL;DR version: I was really only expressing a personal opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having seen Maleficent...the biggest problem with that movie was the LACK of grimmness. They couldn't find a way of doing a proper prequel that retold the story of one of the most iconic Disney villains, without actually just removing any nuance and making her a straight up hero
Anyway I actually though Scarlet was a horrible choice for Kaa...I am way more excited to see Idris Elba as Shere Khan
Also the snow white retelling with Thor was grim, but that was also not Disney, but another studio.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of those Disney classics themselves retold stories from books. And those books retold stories passed down through folklore.
I've no doubt that people at every step of the way were saying the equivalent of "I don't like the new versions of X, they do not appeal to me, and I can see scarce reason for their existence."
Sure. And those people at each step of the way may have been right, as far as their personal preferences are concerned. This isn't some case of technophobia or adherence to the good ol' way. It is merely me, saying that what I liked about the previous movies was their colorfulness, the songs and the good overall atmosphere (combined with the willingness to include bad things that happen - see Lion King and Hunchback of Notredame, my two favorites). I don't really care about the actual story of The Jungle Book all that much, so the new versions aren't for me. As I said, I appreciate it that Disney are trying new things, I like the concept, but the specific new direction they are heading does no interest me at all.
TL;DR version: I was really only expressing a personal opinion.
And personal opinions are great. No beef there. :)
But "I see scarce reason for their existence" reads to me as more than "hey, this isn't for me." The fact that someone else might enjoy something, even if I don't, is reason enough for its existence.
|
|
Having seen Maleficent...the biggest problem with that movie was the LACK of grimmness. They couldn't find a way of doing a proper prequel that retold the story of one of the most iconic Disney villains, without actually just removing any nuance and making her a straight up hero
Anyway I actually though Scarlet was a horrible choice for Kaa...I am way more excited to see Idris Elba as Shere Khan
Also the snow white retelling with Thor was grim, but that was also not Disney, but another studio.
See, to me it seems that the problem was not that the movie was not grim enough, but rather that the concept itself is flawed. You just can't have a Disney movie about the villain. That's not their shtick, that's not their area of expertise. They do kid movies - the animated, innocent ones they can sometimes do exceptionally well. But this whole attempt at a more serious, darker line of live action movies just doesn't work for me at all. It is losing connection with what made their prior movies great, and isn't really done well enough to work. If memory serves me, Pirates of the Caribbean was the only good live action movie they did, and I would write that down as a fluke.
But "I see scarce reason for their existence" reads to me as more than "hey, this isn't for me." The fact that someone else might enjoy something, even if I don't, is reason enough for its existence.
OK, sure, I see how what I wrote misrepresented what I was trying to say. I agree with you that me personally not enjoying something is not reason enough to say it shouldn't exist.
Metallica in the Jungle Book?
I think you lost me on that one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you see, the thing about humor...
The primary, defining characteristic of humor...
The basic, raison d'être of humor...
The essential quality, as it were, of humor...Is that it's funny.
Touché.
And, this being the Messageboard, I can't even use a good comeback like "So that's why you dress that way."
Stoopid Messageboard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I... am really excited. By both B&tB and JB! Huzzah!
Wait the B&tB film is 2017, I thought it was coming out next year.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I continue to be impressed with Disney's overall ability to attract quality talent, not just in front of the camera, but behind it as well. Hell, even off to the side in the writer's room.
That's really what I've always like about the company - it's dedication to making as much money as possible by entertaining as wide an audience as possible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those exited for Beauty and the Beast: you should really check out the 2014 movie by Christophe Gans. I thought it was absolutely amazing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
..which I am excited about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I saw this on Sunday and thought it was amazing. Well cast, gorgeous to watch and had plenty of humour, while still being quite intense. Honestly I'd say it's The Jungle Book for older kids. There's no blood but some of the scenes were a bit much for the little kids in the cinema.