Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Mowgli (2018)/The Jungle Book (1967/2016): side-by-side comparison
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 дек 2018
- Side-by-Side Directory: mattskuta.com/...
This side-by-side, shot-for-shot comparison of three adaptations of the Mowgli stories by Rudyard Kipling is intended to illustration the different choices made by three groups of filmmakers adapting the same written work.
By the way, am I the only one who notices how in 2016 and 2018 the wolves go out of their way to protect Mowgli at great risk to themselves, and yet in the 1967 version the wolves drop Mowgli at the first sign of trouble.
@@afryingpan6675 They dropped him because he had been under Akelas protection. Then, once he missed his kill, Shere Khan seized the opportunity.
realtsavo akela missing his kill wasn’t in the 1967 version though
@@realtsavo What do you mean by "dropped" in this sense?
@@18wolfspirit "abandoned".
Where
1967:Aaah fire!!
2016:Aaah im falling into fire!
2018:Fell down,heavily injured by branches,bleeds and stabbed in the head
Gotta give credit to Andy Serkis and his team for creating a true adaptation of the original Jungle Book novel. Great story. Acting and visuals, with nearly half the budget of the 2016 Disney Jungle Book movie. It's just a shame that WB backed out of a wide theatrical release for Mowgli because Disney (with their resources and money) was able to crank out their film faster. It was unfortunate, because WB announced their film in 2012, however the following year, Disney made their move and announced their The Jungle Book film. For whatever reason Timing just didn't work in his favor.. That being said; For his directorial debut, Andy Serkis did an amazing job. Disney beat them to it, however Serkis had been working on this adaptation for years beforehand. Im Hoping he'll get another opportunity at a major project in the near future.
WB unfortunately felt that Mowgli would flop at the box office... Such a shame. What an experience it would have been to watch it on the big screen.
we get it, you don't have to write an entire paragraph smartass
@@faithful.network True adaption my foot. It may have had the most story beats from the Mowgli stories but it had several differences from the books. Also, it was unnecessarily dark and gritty. Yes, the original stories had darkness and danger, but there was also heart, wonder, majesty, grace, and character. The film still had character but it is missing heart and wonder. So far, there is no true adaption of Kipling's, every film or cartoon is different so take your pick on what you like best.
The look of the animals in Mowgli is so ass what are you talking about?
2016 was the best
Never realized how unrealistically CLEAN mowgli is in the Disney versions for a kid raised be wolves.
Micheal93k have you seen the new aladin , same , the dude is so clean , you don’t feel that it’s a poor homeless guy struggling for his life in the streets lol , disney likes to make everything clean and not dirty
River
Welp its Disney
Yup it's disney
Well, he loves to swim in river...
1967: Is a great film and with good characters and amazing animation.
2016: They did everything right in this movie the visuals are spectacular and the animals look realistic.
2018: A lot darker and faithful to the novel with interesting story and good cast while the designs on the animal characters look a little bit cartoonish.
Just because a story is realistic doesn't mean is good
@@fuckalldisneyremakesorigin5560 Said no one ever
It's funny how the 2016 version is a remake of the animated version, but Serkis' adaptation gave the animals anthropomorphic features... which is closer to what the animated version did.
well no shit sherlock
Serkis version was better than Lion King to be honest, yeah this isn't "realistic" (as if a kid talking with animals could be realistic) but everyone has a lot more character. I love how Shere Khan looks like a psychopath and has that wounded paw, much more interesting.
@@LordSevla I hate how you’re using animals talking as an excuse for the animals to look that damn realistic that is a horrible excuse for disappointing animal designs
@@LordSevla *unrealistic
It's very strange. The 2016 film is more kid friendly yet they went for realistic depictions of animals. The 2018 version is more adult with it's themes and yet the animals look like they should be in a children's film with their big cartoony eyes and faces.
Their faces looked realistic what you mean
@@mrquack6469 You've seen an actual wolf yeah? or a bear?
@@1.21gigawatts2 Baloo is a sloth bear, native to India. The wolves are also Indian wolves which have thinner coats than the north western wolves used in the 2016 version. So yes, they look pretty damn good.
@@viennawalker7002 I never said they didn't look good. Please quote me where I say that? I said they look more cartoony than they should considering the dark tone.
In Mowgli's defense, Warner Bros backed out after Disney made theirs known.
to people comparing about CGI and legitimacy.
here is my take on it.
In terms of using realistic facial animation : Jungle book 2016 did a great job.
In terms of entertainment : Jungle book 2016 did a great job.
In terms of Nostalgia : Jungle book 2016 did a great job.
In terms of Authenticity : Mowgli 2018 did a great job.
In terms of Story : Mowgli 2018 did a great job.
in terms of Characters expression and emotions : Mowgli did a great job.
In terms of Accuracy ( using animals from jungles of India ) : Mowgli did a far better job. Because Jungle Book 2016 has wolves which doesn't looks like Indian wolves. The tiger didn't looked like a royal bengal tiger it looked more like siberian tiger heavily furred. Baloo the sloth bear didn't even looked like indian sloth/ wild bears.
And as per CGI both movies were in same level with different artistic approach.
i agree with everything but the tiger in Mowgli looked so bad didn't look like a real tiger
@Kyle Muncal you are complaining about the artistic choice of face of animals which resembles like human ??? well that's your personal opinion. you and I know that no animal has same exact kind of facial structure. So the filmmakers took that as a creative freedom. i don't have complains with that. That why i rated CGI for both movies as same depending on their artistic approach.
so what i m differentiating is in terms of Accuracy in the Aesthetics and body structure of those Animals in Mowgli. They are far better than Jungle book. Sher Khan did looked like Royal Bengal Tiger with a little narrow jaw, less fur and thinner pelvic. Same goes for that Indian stripped Hyena. And The wolves looked like feral dogs i.e less furry and shorter in height that normal grey wolf. which is exactly same as indian wolves. and Balloo looked like Indian mountain bear who have lesser hair or bald on their head or scalp.
Jungle book 2016 had realistic animals. but not the accurate ones.
@@debasishchapeyar4826 The hyena in the 2018 Jungle Book looks nothing like a striped hyena. He looks like a brown hyena of all things. There's also no tiger in the world who looks like Shere Khan in the 2018 movie. Narrower jaw? Not to the point of looking like a man in a werewolf mask spraypainted orange. Baloo also looks nothing like a sloth bear in the movie.
@@klikssiikubra314 that's you personal opinion mate... I spoke about aesthetic of the animals in India. They nailed in it.
As per so called critics on facial structure looking like humans.... that's the creative freedom for filmmakers buddy ...coz no single animals have the same kind of face, so if filmmakers choose to resemble it like humans.. that not even a legit issue.
It's just you have a different taste on those creative choices.
@@debasishchapeyar4826 It's not just an opinion that Tabaqui is very obviously a brown hyena and not a striped, you might as well call a zebra a horse if you can't see that.
i.pinimg.com/originals/a2/e7/0a/a2e70acaae2c00e8d090961cf5d1f4d8.jpg
And by the by, brown hyenas don't live in India. You can argue about the facial characteristics being a design choice and the merits of that, but you can't pretend that Indian tigers look more like the Mowgli Shere Khan than the Jungle Book one. Not to mention the inaccurate fur patterns on the wolves. You can defend all of these issues but you cannot in the same breath say that it's more accurate in aesthetic than the Jungle Book.
As someone who loves all three versions,
2016 did an amazing job with the realism of all the animals, if at the cost of some of the facial performance being lost
2018 did an amazing job, especially with Andy Serkis, Christian Bale, and above all Benedict Cumberbatch at capturing the performance being given through the motion capture.
Now 2018 did such a great job at capturing the tone and rather brooding darkness of Kipling's writing and showing that yeah the Jungle is a scary place and I felt it did a much more...mature in tone story.
2016 did a great job of nostalgia and in a way reminding people of the magic of the 1967 movie albeit if it does feel kinda too fluff in certain parts
2016 failed in realism, by having Arctic animals live in the Indian jungle
I like all 3 versions, too. But of all three of them, I think I like Jon Favreau's version best. Sure it's mainly retelling the 1967 version's story, but did something different with it. And am I the only one who actually sees that the added a few more elements from the books into that one? Such as The Water Truce, the law of the jungle, and the animals sometimes referring to fire as "the red flower"? Those were in the remake.
And while I rightfully applaud Andy Serkis for being more truer to Kipling's books, at the same time, I felt that it was trying to cram as much of the books into one film. Like, Messua, the woman who adopts Mowgli when he enters the man village felt very shoehorned in for me. Same with the secondary villain, the hunter John Lockwood (who in the books was actually called Buldeo).
Overall, I'd say the 2016 version was the better movie, but 2018 version was the better adaptation. Why is it so easy for people to forget that when a film adapts from a book or two, there's a difference between judging it as, well, a movie, and judging it as an adaptation.
But you know what I think would make the BEST Jungle Book movie? If it was a two parter. Like the first one being the stories of Mowgli's childhood in the jungle that ends with him killing Shere Khan, and the second half being his teenage years that The Second Jungle Book talks about.
Finally, someone who gets it.
@@KiritoExcalibur not exactly two parter but there's a 1994 version of The Jungle Book where you see Mowgli as an adult in the later half of the film
O
It's so sad how the albino wolf gets killed and mowgly didnt get a chance to apologize
Luis Alviso it shocked me!
I know HE LITERALLY HAD HIS HEAD
I really liked that wolf 😢
Yeah me too i was shocked by that..that was kimda fucked up tbh..Mowgli is a lot more agressive then The Junglebook..
beatbox BaM me too.
Alok Grendolukr same.
1967 version: one of my favorite Disney films of all time
2016 version: good with realistic animals
2018 version: A masterpiece by WB! It captured the book very well and it's one of my absolute favorite film of all time! Beautiful CG, beautiful story, beautiful motion capture, and awesome voice actors
The 2018 one is great in terms of realism (the blood, scars, etc.) but the faces of the animals are slightly terrifying! The 2016 one has much better character designs with more realism and it follows the original Disney Jungle Book storyline better. I honestly am not sure which one is the best. They all have their pros and cons.
@@Gab2671 I know the book is different than the Disney version, I'm just saying that the 2016 version follows the 1967 version quite well!
@@reiika the 2016 animals are better than the 2018 animals
@@awesomegirl5190 They look more like the real versions of the corresponding animals. The visuals of the new animals are better tho.
Disney Made The Animals More Cure And Loveable 💀 Netflix Made It More Scary . i love them both but prefer the 2018
Mowgli isn’t an adaptation of Disney’s Jungle Book it’s an adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s books and it’s much closer to them than either Disney movie
2016 better animation ..2018 better story
Soufi Oscar yeh that’s how I felt to, although Mowgli’s graphics weren’t that bad, they’re astonishing as well
period. Im so glad you get it!
Soufi Oscar
Really? I was bored to death of the 2018 one, the 2016 one had so much better flow and pacing too. The 2016’s animations and models are also more realistic and pleasing, imo, and the voice acting/acting was a lot better. Def prefer the 2016
Truth
The story was great but the ending felt rushed
I enjoy all the three.
The 1967 adaptation is fun and was very focused on it's characters.
2016 adaptation looks very nice and has some great action related scenes, but it suffers for me in it's characters
2018's Mowgli was close to it's source material and featured some great looking motion capture with a wonderful child actor in the leading role. It was also refreshing to see some real locations outside of a blue screen capture.
Three really enjoyable films.
In 1967, Shan Khan ran away with the fire on his tail.
In 2016, Shan Khan died on a fire.
In 2018, Shan Khan was killed by Mowgli.
Soviet Union 1973, Mowgli
tore the mouth of a tiger with his bare hands
In the first animated movie, the wolf pack and Akela are barely mentioned and Shere Khan has nothing to do with them, he is just a threat to everyone. Baloo is a ”hippie”, Bagheera is a protective step father who Mowgli dislikes for being such worrying and King Louis is just a crazy drunk monkey.
In 2016, the wolves are mentioned a lot more, Akela dies for chosing to protect Mowgli who is more closed to Bagheera this time than to Baloo who is still a ”hippie” and Shere Khan is the rule-braker hypocrite who threatened everyone to surrender the child.
In 2018, the wolves are a strong united society who is threatened from the begining by Shere Khan who is the ruler of all the evil in the Jungle. Akela dies is a much more wise and stronger leader which dies from a gunshot. Bagheera is Mowgli best friend,( compared to 1967 where Baloo is more closed to him) Baloo is the wolves TEACHER!?? who strictly follows the rules and opposed at first to take care of the baby, Mowgli has an existential crisis, the monkeys are”t ruled by King Louis, but by Shere Khan AKA the monkey tiger king who also takes over the wolf pack and gets killed by Mowgli who in the end becomes the new leader of the pack! The story changes a lot in every movie and only those who read the real Jungle Book can tell us which is the closest to reality and how much it differs. I am pretty sure not even the 2018 movie is at least 70% accurate. Altought it has this time displayed real indian traditions, indian wolves and bear and an accurate landscape of the Indian Jungle.
The fact that you had 3 chances to spell Shere Khan’s name right and still got it wrong
@@JHM765 Shao Khan...
Benedict in Star Trek: Khan
Benedict in Mowgli: Shere Khan.
2016 and 2018 versions of the jungle book have better animation than the remake of The Lion King in terms of expressions.
Lol. 2016 tjb and 2019 tlk don’t have any facial expressions for animals other than angry faces and normal faces duh.
{TJB=TLK}
@@mshaheerarshad In Jungle book they still have more emotions than in Lion King.
I don't understand why the expressions matter. they are animals. animals dont have the same expressions as humans do. I think the expressions of the 2018 version are unsettling, and strange for how dark and violent the movie was. yeh, the 2016 version did have more expression than the Lion King remake. but in my opinion, expressions on animals in a film that was intended to be dark, violent, and realistic just does not fit. it does not look good, nor do I like it. in terms of scenery, both had wonderful scenery and beauty of the jungle.
Just watched Mowgli and I’m in such a doubt of which one’s better: The Jungle book 2016 or Mowgli 2018??
The 2016 version has my heart with the animation of the animals, and tbh I like how Mowgli looked more like the original Mowgli in that movie. The storyline is great too as it follows the original.
The 2018 version had the greatest storyline! Even though I missed Mowgli and Baloos friendship in that version. Didn’t quite like the animation of the animals either, too much human expressions. I kind of got used to it by the end, and at first I didn’t like the look of Baloo, he looked too bad. But yeah I got used to it.
Both movies are great. 2016 wins with the animation and 2018 wins with storyline! Both Mowgli’s did a great job on the acting!!
Disneys adaptation of the jungle book is not the original, there's a book in which Mowgli bases it's story on
And by the way what you mean by saying that Mowgli looked more like the original in the 2016 version,? It's a kid living in the jungle and there ain't no barbers in the jungle, what were you expecting?
Fresh Mangos i guess she expected a shorter hair
But 2018's Mowgli is how Kipling's Mowgli is described in the book. So he's technically the "original" Mowgli, not Disney's. 2018 was far more realistic showing Mowgli having long hair and being covered in dirt too. I doubt you would ever look clean living in a jungle. As for the faces of animals, I agree they do look scary at first, but Andy Serkis explained that these animals are not ordinary animals: they are meant to represent humans too. That's how they are portrayed in the book. When he puts it that way, it makes sense.
Jungle book 2016 for the win!!
they have made so many versions of this movie. i believe the 2016 live-action Disney version was the best and it was the closest to the original than all the other remakes/spin offs
Nah, the 2018 was closer to the original tale by Kipling.
disney's jungle book had better cgi and the animals did look more satisfying due to the realism, however mowgli has a much better storyline and script, i felt like it was more emotional and captivating than disney's jungle book. a lot of the expressions and emotional scenes were done much more better in mowgli, and personally i feel like mowgli's child actor was much more better than the jungle book's and felt more believable. overall i enjoyed mowgli better than the jungle book and want to watch it again, however both movies did very well and i'm only stating my opinion, people are entitled to think differently and it's fine if other people enjoyed the jungle book more than mowgli.
Honestly i think mowgli had far very far better cgi
Mowgli (2018) is the best of all !
Mowgli is darker tbh it scares little kids
This is the one I’ve been waiting for !!! The only thing that I would complain about the 2018 movie is that the fight between mowgli and shere khan takes place during the day which I feel takes away some of the suspense (the other two are in a dark lit setting). But I must say the 2018 version has my favorite defeat of shere khan, no messing around in this one.
2018 since it was released yesterday on Netflix
I. Th. My mistake
Also, those animals looked like sh*t
I also like Akela's death better. He dies honorably. In the other movie, his death was ridiculous
@Ava Livingstone I like his death better in the 2018 movie. In the Disney version from 2016 I think his death is ridiculous
Andy Serkis version is better than 2016 version. Suitable voice actors for every characters and also it has a face expression of the actors itself. Such a brilliant!
Ak_Fiq
Huh, I preferred the 2016’s voice actors far more. Shere Khan’s voice in the 2016 one was way more intimidating and powerful.
@@addieeeson how dare you?
No but like seriously this shit was more than just voice acting, the expression were on there too
Mowgli was good, but i wish Baloo showed his fatherly and caring side in that one, despite acting like Sgt Slaughter.
Ak_Fiq Hey! Bill Murray did a great job and a much better job on voicing Baloo than Andy Serkis.
@@addieeeson I agree
1967 and 2016 is best (in my opinion)
Agree
I agree
Mowgli is the closest to being the most faithful adaptation of the original Jungle Book stories by Rudyard Kipling
Being faithful doesn't mean its good
Buz Buz Well I for one, really liked it
@@Buzzzerino It was faithful and good. But the CGI could have been better.
The faces of some of the animals in Mowgli, are just down right terrifying to look at.
I Like the 2016 version the best cause the animals looked so realistic and the story was done right and with with mowgli the animals looked very creepy and unrealistic i mean they didnt even look like wolves and i can respect what Serkis wanted to do but it fell flat
RIP Bhoot
fairy storyline fits you in a jungle right .lol grow up the jungle is harsher and the cgi in mowgli was not as bad as you claim.The animals had better expressions than just movin their mouths lol
@@thecommenter6548 Okay the Serkis version had a deep and darker plotline and i can see why people like that and i respect that but it just wasn't my cup of tea, the CGI In mowgli to me didn't look good at all they looked completely wierd and unrealistic and telling me to grow up cause i think the 2016 version was the best one like really dude
+ShadowSlayerX87 cgi aint the point.The story is the point because you dont watch a movie to see visual effects its for the story and people who like seeing pretty stuff are kids and thats why disney made the characters like shere khan look less intimidating.Anyways just keep rolling in your logic
@@thecommenter6548 Actually both CGI And the story are the point, both have to be good in order to work and thats where mowgli fell flat yeah to some the story was good and i can respect that if like you like that kind of thing but to me like i said the story was bland and the characters looked like aliens
+ShadowSlayerX87 lol like aliens nope.Story. and characters were way better.Expressions were visible in speeches no disney where a voice is just pasted.Its unrealistic.Stop it already
Bhageera was so amazing in Mowgli
I know man did you see his tears when he left Mowgli in the cage?
Fresh Mangos yes! that part was so sad
2016 is the best in my opinion
I thought 2016 was trash... I mean it had no soul! I very much think this Mowgli has met HIGH standards of story telling and acting.... directing!! Ugh the characters all have motive and the movie was brilliant!
Mowgli storytelling was garbage. The third act is a complete mess, the animal characters are undeveloped (besides Bagheera and Akela), Shere Khan was really disapointing and the final fight with him is total anti-climatic, the human characters wasted in a subplot too fast for it's own good, and the movie tries too hard to be "dark and serious" and does nothing of it. Also Andy Serkis has yet to improve his directing skills.
At least Disney's version knows what is doing.
@@eduardodequechalvares4210 lol Andy only directs the actors brother... this is a WB production they fucked them on the marketing and animation budget... so critique the companies for that mess not the director! I really enjoyed The way the movie showed how different species interact with each other, it carried the soul of our ecosystem so beautifully,, I thought!
@@RandyAbbassi I don't think you know what a director does in a movie.
Mowgli was okay, but The Jungle Book was better IMO.
Jalen Moore
Yeah, I enjoyed The Jungle Book far more. It was so much more entertaining and eventful, I got bored to death of Mowgli. I also preferred the acting in the 2016 way more, especially Shere Khan’s. His voice was so much more intimidating and powerful in The Jungle Book, he was just a let down in Mowgli. Mowgli was trying too hard to be dark and realistic, it was very disappointing and distasteful.
1 like is paying respect for bhoot
If we could only have the 2016 graphics with the 2018 story...
2:44 the Jungle Book 2016, some reason the Villain is from a scene in the Lion king
I respect Jon favreau... But Andy is the best directors, he knows this game and he deeply gets into the story
Mowgli > Jungle book
Nice joke
@@sharkdudeshow9920 never take facts as a joke!
Novamorphosis O fact??? Lol, it’s an opinion
@@sharkdudeshow9920 Never take an opinion as a joke
Bodybuilding Insider
I don’t know about you, but I got bored to death of the movie Mowgli. The acting from the kid was cringe, the models of the animals were weird and off putting, and the pacing and transitions between scenes and shots were extremely confusing and jumpy. The Jungle book was far more eventful and pleasing.
The 2016 Jungle Book animals look more like a realistic adaptation than Mowgli's 2018 ones.
*"mowgli" is the best adaptation of the book. having andy as director immediately tells you it's going to be better than the ones before - it's dark and grounded, sticks by the book like andy aimed to do and it's what you'd expect from a story about a boy who was raised in the jungle and learns to finds himself. we need more films that bring together performance capture and standard acting because guaranteed, when it's done with andy it's done beautifully👌🏾👌🏾*
1967 - better characters
2016 - better animation
2018 - better story
If they combined the 2018s character models and the 2016s photorealistic scenes it would made the entire thing so much more beautiful!
There'll probably be many more adaptations of The Jungle Book in the future, like there have been with so many other great literary classics like Great Expectations, White Fang, etc. Hopefully there will be one that adapts the novel more faithfully than the 2018 version and leaves me with less questions.
I just watched Mowgli and I have to say I enjoyed it better than the Disney 2016 version. I think the acting and voice acting was better in Mowgli and I am apparently one of the rare few who enjoyed the animals being given facial expressions. I thought that added a ton of emotion to the animal characters that was just missing in TJB2016.
I know hehehe, bagheraa was amazing did you see the tears in his eyes when he left Mowgli in the cage?
I really like the design direction for Mowgli too! The human-like faces give off a surreal feeling that I believe suits the darker storyline
Better cg for 2016, but Mowgli trumps both in terms of story and character investment.
Shere Khan in Mowgli is far superior to 2016's Jungle Book.
I agree with that
@@anthonyvega-fujioka4464 Neel Sethi as Mowgli. Auli'i Cravalho as Shanti. Bill Murray as Baloo. Ben Kingsley as Begheera. Christopher Walken as King Louie. Scarlett Johansson as Kaa and Idris Elba as Shere Khan
The Jungle Book 2 (2022)
Take the good parts of 2016 The Jungle Book and 2018 Mowgli and you got the perfect adaptation
I like mowgli more then the jungle book
K Ali me to
Same
Same
I like both equally tbh
Same
I like the version of Andy Serkis more. because it's so dark and scary and not such a childish shit.
i like the faces of the animals. so unique .. and a recognition feature.
Hiro Sama no your shit you don't know about kid movies all your Doing is crap and insulting a kids movie dude you should get hates
+Cool Boy fuck off.Mowgli shouldnt be childish.The jungle for a human shouldnt be that fun in the jungle book its survival like in mowgli.Clearly the jungle book was for kids with softness and fairies
I will say that I think the cinematography in Mowgli is way better than Jungle Book. There's some really awesome shots in that movie.
I love both the 2016 and 2018 versions but mann, the original hits different. The voices, the songs, the classical animation ... 1967 is aesthetic bliss.
1: jungle book 2016
2: jungle book 1967
3:Mowgli
Every time I see a comparison of Mowgli to the Disney versions I feel my IQ drop ever so slightly. Seriously, people, read a book. The world didn't begin with Disney. I would compare "Mowgli" to the Sabu version of "The Jungle Book" before I would the Disney ones. Both are very dark in tone, like the original stories.
I like both the 1967 film and the 2016 remake. the 2018 is alright, though the effects seem like a bit of a downgrade compared to the 2016 one considering how immersive that one was
Autobot Productions they’re bout the same, it’s just the design throw some people off.
@@MarquosXoloVanda yeah they kinda do
Marquo Reign
Yeah, the designs in the 2018 version were weird, it was extremely unpleasing to my eyes. I also loved the voice acting in the 2016, especially Shere Khan’s voice.
@@addieeeson boiiii, the design was meant so that you could see the emotions in the animal now tell me isn't that amazing? Seeing tears in bagheraa and real human expression is so much more than voice acting
Fresh Mangos
Design doesn’t make a difference in how the directors present the animal’s emotions. The animals good look perfect and still you could still be able to see their emotions, I don’t know how design and emotions tie together m8.
I can point out which of each films had better or equal pros:
Both Disney's and WB versions had terrific Bagheeras and wolf packs and visuals.
Mowgli had the better Shere Khan voice and acting
Mowgli had the better Baloo portrayal and so was Kaa!
Freaking bagheraa in Mowgli was amazing, hand up for Christian bale
I just gotta say 2016 have nice animation and its the same story in 1967. 2018 have nice story and I love it
I like these all mainly because:
The original is what started it all
The 2016 jungle book focuses on making the animals look as natural and real as possible
The 2018 mowgli focuses on the expression well while also making sure it keeps some of its realism
They are all great movies and definately one of my favourite Disney films
each of the movies has something special about it... I like all of them
Animals in 1967: Aw, they are silly, cute and fun.
Animals in 2016: Holy shit, they look real AF, did they manage to train real wolves, bears and panthers to talk or something?
Animals in 2018: AHHHHH!!!!! KILL THEM WITH FIRE!!!! PUT THEM OUT OF THEIR MISERY!!!!
The faces were the actual actors faces who were playing them, and to show their Expression at a whole nother level ...
Which was a mistake in my opinion, as it's harder to believe and empathize with these animals. They look uncanny and scary. Barely looking like the animals they are supposed to look like. And this is a very serious flaw because we spend so much time looking at them. Literaly the best looking animals in the movie where the real life cows in the village lol
Why the fudge people judge a movie just because of its CGI? Mowgli is better in storyline, characters and is truer to the book. God.. people..
@@gotdropkicked truer to the book? What does that change
Buz Buz Alot actually. The lessons, the idea, the plot..
Mowgli: story, acting and related to the book.
TJB: characters design, music and related to the animated movie
this is true visual comparison...thanks
The voice acting, mowgli actor, & personally the CGI for the animals (also the design) in the 2018 version is way better.
The story was pretty great! I loved the dark take & man Shere Khan was 10x better than the 2016 version.
The 2018 version wasn't really a dark take. It was closer to the books which were pretty dark. It's just that Disney always make old tales more light hearted.
I have seen both live action versions of jungle book but I have never seen the original 1967 jungle book.
Does Akela die in 1967 Jungle Book? Because it's weird how he dies in both live action movies but in different way.
isn't it weird that 1967 and 2016 Baloo are kind and friendly while 2018 Baloo is like he woke up on the wrong side of the cave?
Here’s what I think;
Disney’s 1967; This is the Jungle Book I grew up with and I really love this version a lot better than the rest TBH. It doesn’t need to be fully accurate to the novel to be perfect. Plus, it’s more fun and lighthearted! And it’s got the Baloo we all know and love!
Disney’s 2016; Still great and lighthearted. And it has a little bit of some dark moments, but still enjoyable. Plus, it’s good to see that the wolves got more screen time!
As for 2018’s Mowgli, I hear it is true to the novel, but a little too dark or serious.
I always like movies that are fun and lighthearted, so I’m definitely going to stick with the original Disney animated one.
To be honest 2018's version is really good and the original is amazing but I really do think that Jon Favreau’s 2016 film is the best one!
You guys can argue between whether mowgli or the jungle book was better, but for me the original animated one is the best.
2016 more Happiness
2018 Oh my god! But entertaining
What about the 90s jungle book with Jason Scott Lee?
I liked the cartoon version
I have read all the comms and this is the conclusion I got plus my opinion:
I will put away the 1967 movie as it was made in another epoque and was directed exclusively to children.
The 2016 movie was GREAT in terms of portraying the animal characters, Mowgli”s wolf mother, the so called ”Red Flower” (I enjoyed the methafor), the jungle law and its traditions like the water truce(which I understood that it didn”t existed in the original book, I think it was awesome to see how the relation of predator-prey during ”peace time”.), the greatness and majesty of the Elephants, the fear that the fire left on Shere Khan, the seer power of Kaa, the strenght of a tiger like Shere Khan(he defeated Bagheera twice and knocked out Baloo and a few wolves), the crazyness of the monkeys etc. The animations of the wild animals was GREAT, they were realistic, Baloo was very funny as we knew him and Bagheera was very serious too, the film emphasized Mowgli”s human abilities like crafting and his relation with the wolf pack and displayed the danger and destructive power of the fire. It lose over the story in the meaning that it displayed the childish fantasy but not the true horror of the jungle and the wild animals were more borrowed from others regions of the world(the wolves, tigers and bears don”t have that much fur in India as in this movie and their spicies differ a lot)
The 2018 movie was GREATER in terms of story as it portrays the harshness of the jungle which is something REAL: male wolves are fighting to usurpate the Alpha Male(Akela) who ussualy is an old but strong and skillful one, animals see each other diffrent(Bhoot), some animals are living a normal life untill they are shot by an hunter, monkeys are actually very dangerous tricky animals, predator animals KILL in order to Live!; tigers are TRUE VENGEFUL animals etc...
It also portrays the traditions of the Man Village, how people see an orphan abandoned stange and lost child(caging him and the children making fun of him), how does an hunter see his own tropheys(Bhoot”s head, the tusk), the conditions in which Mowgli was accepted in the pack, Bagheera”s past and what he thought when he saw a baby human when he belived that all humans were bad. The characters and the actors playing them were better than in the previous one and some see the Mowgli from this movie better. I think they both acted good but this one was more realistic than the 2016”s. This movie lost to the animations of the faces. Wild animals don”t have that loog and thus the other one is better, although it shows more expressions like sadness, desperation, rage etc. And Kaa has the role of narator here and isn”t a negative character here(which is something I enjoyed :)). The end i find to be pretty crappy, like Mowgli gets shot in the arm by an experienced hunder who claimed he never misses(actualy he aimed for the tiger but „missed„), Shere Khan gets stabed by Mowgli a few times while being trampled by the elephants, Akela dies honourably and declares Mowgli as the new leader who didn”t have any experience in leading, the village has no idea what happened to the strange boy etc. I liked the animations with the Jungle and the Man Village as they depict how the Indian Jungle looks in reality (it”s astonishing!!), but how on Earth did that tiger got to be the Monkey”s King!? Yeah, even this one messes with the story we used to know. And I am sad that they showed us a bit too less of the relation between Baloo and the child than the Previous one.
In my opinion, both are GREAT in their own ways. The Jungle Book depicts a more Disney-ish type of story with great animations and relation between characters while Mowgli, The Legend of the Jungle has a more realistical chose for the animals to animate(except their faces which have too much human features), follows the storyline pretty accurate (I still have no idea why Shere Khan leads the monkeys or if Mowgli actualy kills the tiger or the tiger gets killed by its greatest fear, The Fire), the experience Mowgli had with the Hunter and the Man Village and the portrayal of Akela, the Alpha Male of the pack, a wise and strong leader(being so old and capable of defeating numerous younger wolves...), these are the things that makes this one GREAT TOO. If you think i made a good description of the movie, like and please, if you know the book, tell me which movie added or missinterpretated various facts.(Is there a King of the monkeys or how did Shere Khan actualy died?)
Netflix's mogwli was so realistic 👌👌👌👌👍👍
THAT WAS PRETTY AWESOME!!!!!
As someone who cannot multitask with these movies side by side, it’s kind of a training exercise with my eyes.
2018 is best 😍😍
1967 is obviusly the best
2016 and 2018 are both very good tbh.
2016 has the wonderful visuals with the realistic yet subtly expressive animals, and 2018 allows for more expression at the cost of some of its realistic design, but it remains as possibly the most faithful adaptation of the book we've got.
I love more the jungle book 2016 and 1967
I really prefer the Mowgi movie from these two remakes. They did the exact right aproach by doing this split between realitstic looking animals and giving them a specific amount of mimic. Kinda reminds me a bit of Disney's Dinosaurs back than from the way they show expressions. I wish Disney would learn from this and remember the good CG-Movies they did.....and hopefully ain't gonna repeat that crap they did with the Lion King again
now we just need a comparison of AAAAAALLLLLL The Jungle Book Movies x3
I like The Jungle book 2016
I like and the Disney's version of 90s.
The story is between Mowgli and Tarzan, but it was created very well!!!
Finally someone else who gets it!
Why the fudge people judge a movie just because of its CGI? Mowgli is better in storyline, characters and is truer to the book. With real death and violence that was supposed to have since its a bloody JUNGLE people. Not bad CGI but could be better. Nice pacing.
Jungle Book? The same usual happy ever after crap. The Mowgli in there looks unrealistically clean. It ruined the songs. The wolves weren't arctic wolves for goodness sake! The bear wasn't supposed to be grizzly. Not accurate to the book but awesome CGI. Pretty good pacing but.. not accurate to the books..
Wins: Mowgli
Henry Espanola well, maybe because the jungle book is from Disney and it had to be family friendly 🙄
Doesn't matter if it's not in the book but tbh Mowgli scares little kids
Disney just has a way of making average films look pretty.
The book that started it all wasn't that family friendly.
Frr, idk why people go after Mowgli so hard. No one appreciates art anymore I guess, people have high standards for their own visual preferences these days instead of taking a chance on story, characters, world building, and accuracy to original source materials.
It's a shame. The 2016 one is just a more hyper realistic version of the original Disney movie, but with Mowgli choosing to stay in the Jungle instead ):
(Disregarding the animated film)
What's interesting is there are things that I just prefer in the The Jungle Book but at the same time there are things that I just prefer from Mowgli.
Mowgli
kid who plays Mowgli
It was darker but enjoyable
Bhoot
Interaction with the other animals aside from the wolves
Jungle Book
the kind nature of some of the characters
Monkey King
Khan had no limp
Yes Brazil
Jungle Book Ratings
1967: G
2016: PG
2018: PG-13
I liked the 1967 and 2016 of the jungle 📖 version.
RIP Bhoot
I prefer 2016's model. More accurate
Mowgli is da best!✊
I couldn't watch Mowgli when I learned the little albino wolf pup dies. And that Mowgli left things on a bad note and would never get to apologize. I can't do violence that has to do with kids or animals. I already know it exists and is out there. I've seen documentaries and other videos about it. (From Farm to Fridge broke my soul for weeks.) I don't need to see it in movies and TV right in front of me.
I will admit Mowgli did have a better story line and was good in SOME aspects of realistic plot devices, but all of that already made it dark to begin with. The little puppy being killed made it overkill for me.
I like the 2016 one better because the ‘Mowgli’ movie was toooooo brutal...
lol
I think my feelings for the 2018 version can be summed up with this: Andy Serkis should absolutely direct more movies.
Tres versiones, tan diferentes como iguales, una es mas animada, otra es más real, y otra es mas realista 😎
The 2016 jungle was the best I think the animals look more realistic and r cute but the original will always be the original.
We didn't even see King Louie in Mowgli 2018... Scandal
Ladies and gentlemen... We got him
All right hold up, grab my bear and let me explain
First things first . Disneys jungle book is NOT THE ORIGINAL VERSION AND HAS NEVER BEEN, it's just an adaptation from the ORIGINAL novel made by Kipling.
Now the 2016 version adapted itself from their own family friendly Disney adaptation, literally 2 WEEKS AFTER ANDY (2018 version) ANNOUNCED HIS MOVIE, now tell me isnt that funny?
And the 2016 version wasn't bad at all it was meant for kids you know the whole animal dancing and shit.
Now the 2018 version Mowgli ...
These movie was an adaptation from the original novel, NOT THE DISNEY ADAPTATION, now let me tell you the original novel wasn't for kids, oh hell no, but you see how Disney likes adding cocaine I MEAN SUGAR to all their work. In this one you saw more realism and a different story AND THERE AINT NO KING LUI IN THE ORIGINAL NOVEL autistic genetic kid...
Now let me tell you why the 2018 version is better...
The story line, who doesn't like seeing something dark in a while huh?
You might have noticed something weird in the animals? Like human faces?
Well that's because Andy was aiming for animals to show real emotions, and the faces you could see where the actual actors playing the characters which by the way did an amazing performance. Now tell me isnt that amazing?
And Andy stared his work first and later Disney decide to make their own movie too with a bigger budget and finishing first, Disney can be an asshole sometimes, now tell me don't you think Andy deserves more recognition for everything he and the crew went for?
@@mrquack6469 Holy shit, you're toxic. What have I done to you?
1967 is the best
ok so the 2016 ones animals are my personal fav they look better and more animated compared to the 2018 one puppets ive never like the puppets
bill murray not being the voice of baloo in the netflix version makes me sad
I like the jungle book 2016 better
I like mowgli better
awesomegirl5
Same, 2016 version is way more entertaining.
@@addieeeson Agree, it's a great sit down family film.
Then you should go fuc... I'm just playing man, yeah I totally get you, both are good movie but I honestly prefer 2018 version
Fresh Mangos
Haha thanks for understanding, kinda.
I didn’t even know that Mowgli was a film that existed!
aw yes, netflix, its always the netflix adaptation
finally, its good
How did they get away with making the same film twice 🤔
Disney live action was a remake of their animated vers.
While Mowgli is adaptation of original novel by Kipling.
To be fair, The Jungle Book isn't some original story Disney made up. They took it from a book, so it only makes sense some movies are gonna feel similar