Talk:The Jungle Book (2016 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Makayla Stanley, LorraineRodz. Peer reviewers: Imartins34, Kungfudragon1, Zxmaria, Ikhan-rollins.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 04:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

CGI or Live-Action?

I really don't think this qualifies as a "live-action" film. If you watch the trailer, it doesn't appear that there is much of a live-action element. The animals portrayed are all CGI with voice-overs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithApplebyPhD (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's still counts as a Live-Action feature. Just because it's got CGI for backgrounds and characters, doesn't mean it's a Live-Action/CGI film. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The trailer shows both CGI and live action (the boy). More importantly, the director himself said all locations are CGI (writer also states, "almost everything on-screen but Mowgli is animated"): [1]. Sources also say CGI and live action: [2], [3], [4]. So it is both, but largely CGI.
talk) 07:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I find that accusation on me edit warring the page highly offensive for I was not doing that. As I said, it's counts as a live-action feature despite using CGI. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted twice, despite talk discussion.
talk) 08:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That's because you didn't add the source to the page that it is a live-action/CGI film. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More faithful to the original material by Kipling

There have been articles saying this film, unlike the 1967 version, is more faithful to the original books by Rudyard Kipling. Should we add that to this article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by WakeFan91 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this movie is not that faithful to the books. It's just slightly more accurate. If it were faithful, then Kaa would be neither female nor a seductress, but a male and a wise brother-like mentor. Baloo would be a no-nonsense and humorless teacher, not a sarcastic comic relief. Mowgli would be more independent and charismatic, not a naïve fun-loving boy. Shere Kahn is pretty much the only one who is somewhat faithfully depicted. I can go on but I think I've made my point. This movie is rather based on the 1967 cartoon but borrows more elements from Kipling. So I think this movie is rather based on the 1967 cartoon than the original Kipling works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.219.247 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Himalayan Brown Bear.

In the actual movie it is mentioned that Baloo is a Sloth Bear. Even though he appears more like a Brown Bear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:600:4E4C:F1D8:949:21A7:6205 (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. When Bagheera catches up with them, after The Bear Necessities... Mowgli: "...and now we're working together." Bagheera: "Really? That's a new wrinkle - I didn't know sloth bears worked."

I'll make the edit and see whether the justification for Himalayan brown bear appears. Fluppeteer (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted: Sloth bears have little similarity to the depiction in the film, which is clearly based on Ursus arctos, and therefore, because of the Indian setting, U. arctos isabellinus is presumably intended (although not accurate to the area of India in which the story is set). There are references to Baloo hibernating, which is inconsistent with Melursus ursinus. Kevin McE (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General consensus seems to be that Kipling didn't make the distinction and he was describing a sloth bear. I agree that Baloo as rendered looks more like a brown bear, but I'm not sure it's definitive - Wikipedia's own sloth bear page shows a brown example, although Baloo would be unusually large (relative to Shere Khan) and fat (even before being fed up by Mowgli), and less shaggy than sloth bears (he does groom a lot). He may simply be a sloth bear who happens to look like a brown bear.

Nonetheless, we're taking about the accuracy of the rendering over Bagheera explicitly calling him a sloth bear in the dialogue. I assume the animators goofed, or just thought a sloth bear would look funny to an audience more used to the more widespread brown bears and made a late artistic change without updating the audio.

As for hibernation, that's also explained in the film in the scene just after the Bear Necessities:

Mowgli: "But I'm helping Baloo get ready for hibernation!"

Bagheera: "Bears don't hibernate in the jungle. What are you teaching him?"

Baloo: "Not full hibernation, but I nap. A lot."

I don't think we can definitively make a claim based solely on Baloo's appearance. (He's also shown singing, after all.) At the least, the disagreement between the appearance and Bagheera's words are worth calling out. Would you accept:

"Kaa attempts to devour Mowgli, but she is attacked by a bear named Baloo (who appears to be a Himalayan brown bear, but is later described as a sloth bear by Bagheera), who rescues the unconscious Mowgli."

It's a little unwieldy, but I'm not sure the distinction is worth a separate clarification, and the explicit disagreement with the script means I can't be the only one who's going to be confused if we leave "Himalayan brown bear" unqualified. (I'll leave it a bit for feedback and make this edit if I don't see any.) Fluppeteer (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would simply have Kaa attempts to devour Mowgli, but she is attacked by a bear named Baloo, who rescues the unconscious Mowgli. We have no identification the bear species from a reliable secondary source, and the primary source is self-contradictory. We don't have any source for the subspecies of wolf, the species of snake or buffalo, or the race of tiger either. All of these seem to be based on geographical assumptions rather than anything that would meet WP:RS. Maybe we shouldn't expect too high a zoological standard of exactitude from a work predicated upon anthropomorphism. But if there is to be a claim that any animal character represents a species, then inconsistencies should be pointed out. But I would suggest that the precision of identification should be that appropriate to the accuracy of images in a kids' film: vague. Kevin McE (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me; I'll make that edit. The separate article on Baloo already mentions an inconsistency, but it's better discussed there than distracting from the plot here. Fluppeteer (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did Jon Favreau write this article?

Seriously, this article smacks of something written by someone who's gotta be REALLY personally invested. So many things here that seemingly would only be known by direct participants-and they would certainly be the only ones who would CARE... Thought maybe Favreau's inexplicably credited, voice-cast children, but the author is stoking him so hard that would just be, like, eww. So I guess I'd put my money on whomever the Disney company cloned and/or lobotomized for jerk-off jobs.

I mean really, it's sad and pathetic even by Wikipedia standards! Am i right (or am I just amused with myself-who knows)?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.197.25 (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some specific examples? ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 21:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

$1 billion reference

All the articles were written in April. Are there any recent ones which make that claim after it began slowing down when the summer season started on Memorial Day domestically? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:2D50:4245:DC0C:33E3 (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

$900 million mark

There's a link that The Jungle Book crossed $900 million worldwide. Try using the link to Variety and post it on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent disruptive editing,
WP:OWN

An editor keeps removing references and reverting this article back to their preferred version, despite having been reverted by three different editors. They insist "The film isn't based on Kipling's works, it's based on the animated movie but draws influence from the books." This is an opinion, not supported by references. For now, I must respect

WP:3RR, but I invite 89.160.219.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to explain why the Forbes and Disney production notes sources are inaccurate. Sro23 (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello?

Could I get some help with how to properly incorporate references and sources? Austin012599 (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or for that matter, how to incorporate already added sources next to new information? Austin012599 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need help with? You can always ask questions at the
WP:REFB has instructions on how to add inline citations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Musical film?

Is this also a musical film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neel Sethi

As I am unsure where to ask this question I'll ask it here. Would it be possible to create a page for this actor Neel Sethi. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markensoft (talk • contribs) 14:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel section

Appallingly badly written, and clearly not up to date. Does anyone have up to date info on what current state of progress/schedule might be? Kevin McE (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Jungle_Book_(2016_film)&oldid=1207880085"