So which did you think was better?

It still kinda weirds me out that the kid is a literal 3d translation of mowgli

>>88458735
>timeless cartoon vs live-action movie with CGI that'll be outdated in a couple of years

File: t_rex_jeep_cgi.jpg (131KB, 938x348px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 938x348px

>>88458760
>timeless cartoon vs live-action movie with CGI that'll be outdated in a couple of years

File: Rudyard_Kipling's_The_Jungle_Book_film_poster.jpg (28KB, 260x383px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 260x383px

>tfw everybody forgot about the 1994 movie.

>>88459420
i never did

that mowgli awakened something in me

Which movie was it (it was live-action, no cgi) where Mowgli/tarzan character fights with a gorilla in the jungle while the other gorillas watch and he kills it with a knife or something? Also there was a pool of water where they were fighting.

>>88458885
i dunno jurassic park isn't a very good example of that

>>88459689
How is not? Jurrasic Park is still well remembered 20 years later.

>>88459800

it was CGI mixed with animatronics though. And a lot of the CGI does look dated.

>>88459800
Jurassic Park barely has any cgi. Practical effects hold up.

>>88458735
Mowgli touching all over Baloo's chest is getting me rock hard.

>>88458760
>timeless cartoon
The jungle book cartoon was an uninspired piece of mediocrity.
Easily one of Disney's worst. All it has is one song to its name that's worth anything.

The movie is better but definitely not as great as many people hyped it up to be.

>>88458735
16 is a better movie

67 is a better kids movie

if that makes any sense

File: andy2.jpg (68KB, 1019x562px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1019x562px

>>88459907
>And a lot of the CGI does look dated.
So does Toy Story's, doesn't stop it from being one of the best animated features of all time.

>>88459968

they made a conscious effort in Tory story to minimize the screentime of the human characters. All the main characters are plastic dolls so the dated CGI is less grating. If they made Frozen back then no one would be able to watch it today.

File: sid.png (1MB, 1067x600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1067x600px

>>88459986
And yet, Sid shows up consistently for half the film.

File: sid again.jpg (140KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1920x1080px

>>88459986
>>88460002
They even push for as many close-ups as they fucking can.

>>88458735
Hard to compare, they're two completely different movies.
I missed the vultures.

>>88458735
Right.
Everyone says the original is better is a contarian redditor. The only good part where two songs, the rest was forgettable and it has LITERALLY no plot at all.

File: 1481079881532.png (6KB, 366x286px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 366x286px

The gigantopithecus was a cool idea


I'M THE KING O' THE SWINGER OH
THE JUNGLE VEE EYE PEE

>>88458735

The cartoon one simply because the live action version fucked up "I wanna be like you" You have Christopher Walken voicing king Louie but don't have the Ape dance or even move at all? Unforgivable

>>88458735
The new movie was absolutely horrible. Everything was rendered down to giant farts of CG and the novelty of CG talking animals is long gone. It tried to be "epic" but there was no sense of real tension, especially with how it jumped from setpiece to setpiece so quickly.

It wasn't an adaptation of the original since it omitted every song but the two Disney considers important to the brand (and even then only slightly, since both use only a verse or two.) The King Louie scene was especially atrocious since they made him out to be a great big CG video game boss monster who was supposed to be a scary Godfather, but then he suddenly starts singing a jaunty jazz tune in a movie that isn't a musical. Then they have to fight him in a boss battle by making him destroy the pillars to drop the ceiling on himself.

I also find it extra funny that they didn't even bother using the original ending, where the overarching message was "be who you are," and instead made it a "diversity is strength" thing so they could make a sequel with all the same characters.

Look, I believe that you could make a serious and gripping adventure movie with talking animals, but this definitely wasn't it. I don't really know who the target audience for this was. All I know is that this was the worst movie I've seen this year.

>>88459637
I think you're thinking of a Tarzan movie, but I remember him fighting a snake in a rock pit with water at the bottom. Maybe we're thinking if the same thing.

The new movie was the perfect chance to give us a non-villainous Kaa and they failed to deliver.

>>88460705
You just wanted more Kaa fap material

File: sherekhan.jpg (84KB, 768x431px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 768x431px

>>88458735
The 1967 version because George Sanders had a beautiful voice.

>>88458735
2016

Though 1967 had better songs.

File: ea7d8156f596516013626446245584af[1].jpg (27KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 564x423px

>>88458735
Isn't it obvious?

>>88460737
If that were the case new Kaa would suffice.

It's just that literary Kaa says and does a lot of cool stuff and is one of Mowgli's primary mentors. And then Disney made him into a gag villain. As an adaptational choice it's pretty bizarre.

1967 I've watched several times and I'll watch it several more times. I saw 2016 once in theater and have no urge to ever see it again.

>>88459800
Jurassic Park and We're Back! have nothing to do with each other, while OP was talking about remakes.