Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
How Andy Serkis’ ‘Jungle Book: Origins’ Will Be Different 2017-07-25 09:53:13 Post No. 85453678
[Report] Image search: [Google]
How Andy Serkis’ ‘Jungle Book: Origins’ Will Be Different 2017-07-25 09:53:13 Post No. 85453678
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: Andy-Serkis-Star-Wars-Character-700x300.jpg (53KB, 700x300px) Image search:
[Google]
53KB, 700x300px
How Andy Serkis’ ‘Jungle Book: Origins’ Will Be Different
Anonymous
2017-07-25 09:53:13
Post No. 85453678
[Report]
>Well, ours is using performance capture, and theirs didn’t. Ours is shot on location, it’s in real locations, we shot in South Africa. [The film] is very much more like live action photography… We have these actors who played the animals as opposed to [just voicing] the animals, so there’s a great difference in that. The way of embodying that character and owning that role all the way through the conception and authorship of the role. [This version], as [in] the book, is grounded in India. It’s colonial and turn of the century, so it has that sort of authenticity and, I suppose, that sense of [being] closer to Rudyard Kipling’s world.
>I’ve got to say that personally I’m absolutely thrilled that Warner Brothers have changed the delivery date of our movie. The ambition for this project is huge. What we are attempting is an unprecedented level of psychological and emotional nuance in morphing the phenomenal performances of our cast into the facial expressions of our animals.
Based Serkis
Disney and Favreau btfo
>>
Serious is redpilled and /ourguy/.
>>
>We did it differently, but it's the same shit
Good to know
>>
>>85453940
>what is tone?
>>
>>85453940
This. Jungle Book is a shit series anyways.
>>
this guy is overrated
>>
>>85453678
The previous live action one was pure shit
This one has to be better by default
>>
>>85454095
What was wrong with last years?
>>
>>85454177
All of the acting was either phoned in, or just shit
The writing was right out of a PBS Kids program too
>>
>>85454177
It felt incredibly fake while simultaneously doing little to stand apart from the animated version. So we just ended up with a movie that was 100% obvious green screen and a bland adaption of the animated movie.
At least this sounds like they are doing something more tangible and interesting with it.
>>
>>85454177
Completely soulless. Look at their eyes when the animals are speaking. You can tell it's not motion capture like Serkis' Apes films
>>
>>85453678
another way it's different is that Disney's was successful
>>
fucking andy serkis. why is he the only person in these mocap movies.
>>
>>85453678
I actually didn't give a shit about this but after reading this interview, I'm looking forward to the movie. not planning on watching it in the theater unless the trailer is really good (didn't watch the disney one in the theater either cause I don't like jungle book that much)
I really like Serkis though since all his characters and CGI are spot on so this might even be a movie I might check out
>>85454020
I feel like he's underrated since his company has some really good skills. why the fuck Disney doesn't use his company for the Black Panther CGI is beyond me. do they only do animals or what?
>>
>>85457833
man, Serkis sure knows how to give his creatures emotions. I am sure that this was the key to success for the Planet of the Apes films. Caeser is a god-tier character and the apes in general are more fun to watch than characters in 95% of Hollywood movies
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1