Jungle Book 2 Thoughts Thread

[All Aboard]

Figured I start a thread on JB2. Given the success of Return to Neverland last year, it was a sure thing that Disney would give it another go with one of the classics. I'll see it tomorrow and provide thoughts then, but wow have the critics spoken.

I like the scoring system used on Rottentomatoes.com. The "Cream of the Crop" reviewers give JB2 just a 17% approval rating. Yikes. Compare that to the 71% they gave RtN just a year ago.

Comments include "There's an assembly-line, direct-to-video feel about the whole production." and "The whole enterprise starts to feel like a sheer con."

Too bad. As much as I disliked the concept of sequels going into theaters, I was entertained by Return to Neverland. More tomorrow.

 

[WDSearcher]

And yet the LA Times critic gave it a rave.

REVIEW: A Worthy Sequel to 'Jungle Book'

(LA Times) -- Since its 1967 release, Disney has reissued "The Jungle Book," inspired by Rudyard Kipling's stories, many times and even made a live-action sequel in 1998. At last it has produced a big-screen, animated sequel, "The Jungle Book 2," a work of such charm and imagination it should enchant, as the old circus phrase goes, "children of all ages." Director Steve Trenbirth and a vast animation team have honored the classic Disney style of simply and attractively rendered human and animal characters with superbly illustrated backgrounds, in this instance a lush, leafy jungle replete with ancient ruins and a humble rural village nearby. It is in this village that the irrepressible Mowgli (voiced by Haley Joel Osment) lives with his adoptive family. The sequel does not inform us that Mowgli had been raised in the jungle by wolves, but it soon becomes clear that he misses Baloo (John Goodman), a sweet-natured creature Mowgli calls Papa Bear, who in turn refers to Mowgli as "man-cub," as do the boy's other animal friends. The villagers, in particular Mowgli's adoptive father (John Rhys-Davies), regard the jungle as dangerous, and its children are forbidden to cross the river and enter it. A homesick Mowgli cannot resist, and a concerned neighbor girl, Shanti (Mae Whitman), soon follows in search of him. Mowgli's subsequent adventures are told with much wit and humor, and knockout musical numbers give the film a terrific lift. From the original "Jungle Book" are Richard M. Sherman and Robert B. Sherman's "I Wanna Be Like You" and Terry Gilkyson's rousing "Bare Necessities." Lorraine Feather and Paul Grabowsky have created several new jazzy, razzmatazz swing numbers in a '40s vein that, along with Joel McNeely's score, lend a smart, engaging retro feel to the film -- a standout is "W-I-L-D" staged like an elaborate production number in a vintage Broadway or Hollywood musical in which Baloo means to convince Mowgli that his place is in the jungle. It is a testament to the artistry and skill of all involved that the inevitable moment in which Mowgli realizes he must make a choice between man and beast is remarkably poignant. Yet "The Jungle Book 2" cleverly moves beyond this tug-of-heart to end on a jaunty, upbeat note reconciling mankind and nature.

 

[raidermatt]

Thanks, gcurling, for starting the thread, and thanks Searcher, for finding a rave review.

What this all boils down to is that the theatrical release of the film will be evaluated in two ways:

1. From the same view any Disney animated feature is evaluated. Critical success is a piece of it, but the major piece is the box office take. How does the audience respond? Regardless of what part of Disney's animation team made the film, it is being released into theaters bearing the same name as past Disney releases, including Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Cinderella, etc, etc, etc. Therefore, that is the standard the audience expects, and we shall soon see if JB2 meets that standard.

2. From a short-term business point of view. The film cost $X to make ($25 million?), and takes in $X at the box office. While this is important, it ignores the long term impact that films like RTN have on the Disney brand name. Nonetheless, this will be the standard used to justify the decision if JB2 fails to reach the box office totals of other successful Disney theatrical releases.

 

[Another Voice]

Well here’s what Roger Ebert (who is employed by Disney in case you didn’t know) has to say –

“A new book argues that the average American child spends twice as much time watching television than interacting with his parents, and movies like "The Jungle Book 2" are dimwitted baby-sitters, not growth experiences. If kids grow up on the movie equivalent of fast food, they will form an addiction to that instant action high and will never develop the attention span they need to love worthwhile fiction.

Disney can do better, will do better, usually does better. To release this film theatrically is a compromise of its traditions and standards.”

His entire review can be found at http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-jungle14f.html .

 

[Luv2Roam]

If the previews in the trailer are the highlights, I say it ranks right up there with Country Bears. Well, not THAT bad.
I didn't see CB. Don't plan on seeing JB2. (Neither even in DVD form.)
However, IF I had kids, that would be a different story. I think these are a few times where these were aimed at kids -- rather than family entertainment everyone would appreciate. (Like L&S or MI)

 

[Terry S]

I was just watching Extra or Entertainment Tonight, can't remember which one and they gave JB2 a thumbs up. Interestingly enough they have Daredevil a Thumbs down though which I think looks really good in the trailers.

 

[Planogirl]

Here's Yahoo's summary of reviews so far... http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1808413751&cf=critic

It's interesting that a few of the critics really did like the movie.

 

[BibbidyBobbidyBoo]

Oh great. Now if I buy this for my kids I'm rotting their brains out. Thanks a lot Ebert.
*sigh*

LOL

Nevertheless.... I'm sure it's better than a lot of other crap I could buy my kids! When they ask for a new Disney movie... I buy it.

 

[d-r]

DR and I have talked about this and having not seen the movie the whole idea just seems to be a travesty. Part of the beauty of the original film was that Mogli went off to be with the humans - that was the sad beautiful point! To have a sequel defeats the purpose of the orginal film.

At first I was annoyed at how many characters they were going to put John Goodmans voice behind, but then I watched Aristocats the other night and realized how many repeat voices there were in the past and it seemed kind of neat - sort of. Now using Haley Joel Osment - I can't stand that kid - that is enough to send me running the other way in and of itself. He and Julia Stiles are the two actors in this world that can actually make me root against them!

Melissa

 

[KNWVIKING]

Over on box office mojo they shoe JB2 did 3 mil Friday nite. If you click on the movie title it shows shows film studio and production cost and marketing $$$. Some movies,including JB2 show N/A in those fields. Just curious if anyone knows why ?

 

[All Aboard]

Just got back home from JB2. It had a scheduled 12:40 start time, of course there were significant trailers - perhaps the movie started at 12:50. When we came out, I'm fairly sure I noted the time was 1:57. Is that possible, barely over an hour??

I'll try not to be too negative about the movie, so I'll say it was "cute" at times. Some kids laughed occaisionally.

To me, it was no better (or worse) than either Hunchback II or Mermaid II. Heck, the Return of Jafar is on par with this one. I guess it tested better than all those and that drove Disney to the theatrical release.

I found Return to Neverland to be touching and quite moving at times. I was truly entertained by it. This one did little at all for me. Natalie (5) seemed to enjoy it ok, but didn't have much to say about it afterward.

 

[airlarry!]

Check out the review over at Jim Hill's site:

www.jimhillmedia.com

The same writer who praised the Pirates script was pretty tough on the Jungle Book 2.

My favorite line is when he describes the audience he thinks Disney was shooting for.

I have been such a Dis-noid when it comes to DFA releases. First in line, multiple viewings. Saw Herc a week early at a pre-screening (the first of 3 viewings in the theater). Saw Tarzan twice more after a screening when I brought my family and friends to see the 'surf the trees' scenes. Went to the Hunchback parade in New Orleans (and some of my family went to the Superdome party.) Saw Lilo twice, and Treasure Planet the day it opened.

So please do not question my Disney loyalty. I am as loyal a Disney picture fan as the best of the Car 1 types...except....

I REFUSE TO PAY MONEY TO WATCH THESE SEETHROUGHS...err....SEQUELS.

I'm not buying 'em, I'm not renting 'em, I'm not supporting them until Ei$ner wakes up until he personally schedules a session with the Baron for an hour of reviewing Walt's Book of Quotes.

 

[KNWVIKING]

box office mojo lists it at 1 hr,18 minutes.

 

[All Aboard]

11+ million? Really? I was thinking that it would do about $10m (which would = around 1.75 million people.) I don't know that I'd call it a "travesty". Should it have been released in the theaters? Probably not. But, amidst all the Powerpuff Girl, Wild Thornberries, Recess, and Rugrats movies out there, it's much better. I'll definitely purchase it when it comes out. But, who am I kidding, we have CindyII, QuasiII, ArielII, AladdinII&III, a couple of Beauty and the Beasts, Tarzan and Jane, PocahontasII, all the Houses of Mouse. I guess nothing changes until we stop eating it up.

I'll watch it again since I spent more than $50 at The Disney Store afterward (which got me two tickets.)

The real travesty would have been releasing Cinderella II in the theater.

 

[airlarry!]

Actually, M. Greg, you have me to blame.

I was the guy who also bought all the Lion King and Aladdin sequels, rationalizing that a) my kids liked 'em a little bit and b) they were Direct to Video (DTV) so what's the harm of it all?

I'll bet there is some blue suit somewhere in Burbank that projected some theory out there that if they produced a few of the beloved stories like LK and Aladdin in DTV format, that we Disney animation lovers would get softened up...and that eventually they could save $$$ and make butt-loads of $$$ by upgrading the production value a bit on the DTVs and release them in the theaters.

So it's my fault we're stuck with these 'cause I settled for 'em in the first place.

My only point here, and I hope I am not the only one who believes this, is that even though they make money for the company, the company does not seem to be pouring it back into the parks (which was my rationalization) or into DFA...and I sincerely believe that the Disney company is better than this. We don't need to become the Land Before Time clone (what are they up to now, 7 or eight of them?) Leave that for other companies to do. Produce new and magical stories. Now.

For those of you who think that it is foolish to believe that Disney would ever make The Lion King VII--Simba's Grandkid's Big Birthday Party, remember this:

It took the company 50 years or so to make Cinderella and Jungle Book 2...but now we have no less than 7 sequels of different movies. It can and mayl happen.

 

[All Aboard]

For those of you who think that it is foolish to believe that Disney would ever make The Lion King VII--Simba's Grandkid's Big Birthday Party...

I think Piglet's Big Movie is evidence that anything can happen with Disney Animation now.

 

[mickeyminnie]

It is the ONLY rated G movie out there right now.

I have not gone yet, but will because my kids are 2 and 5 and like to go to movies but there needs to be one available for them to see. We don't take our kids to PG at this age. It is winter and what a fun crappy afternoon activity, take your kids to a movie, but there hasn't been one available for ages and ages. So at least it will have the draw of being a movie available to the little set.

Can't wait for Piglet movie.

J

 

[Another Voice]

Let me rant:

“Until these things start tanking at the box office, I'm afraid we are stuck with them though.”

You know, it really sounds like people believe that the cheap sequels are a force of nature. That they’re something created from the audience's collective willpower and poor ole Disney just has to suffer through.

No, someone at Disney decided to make them in the first place. Someone at Disney typed out the words for the actors to read (I won’t call them scripts). Someone at Disney set the design. Someone at Disney lowered the animation quality to ‘Power Rangers’ level. Someone at Disney made this drivel.

Market forces aren’t dictating what happens with these films – people are. It’s these people who make the decisions, not the box office. It’s these people who’ve decided that pandering is easier than creative effort. It’s these people who have decided that ripping off the past is less bothersome than creating something new. It’s these same people who can decide to offer quality; the travesty is that they choose not to.

For those who claim Disney needs to make a buck – is that the new definition of “Disney Magic”? Is anything justified simply because it has a Disney® sticker on it and they want your money? Is the standard of Disney Quality now so low that unless four year olds are vomiting in the theater, it’s “magic”? Low budget does not have to mean low quality. But low effort always produces bad things.

 

[KNWVIKING]

When TP was the hot topic on this board the general concensus was that animation was great and it had a good story. It bombs horribly.
JB2 comes out.Poor animation,poor story. It turns 15-17mil in four days, and only cost 20 mil to make.
Maybe our standards are to high.Maybe we are such a minority that Disney can't give us what we want and stay in business. Look at the "reality" shows the networks give us. Look at all the low-brow crap they are putting out because the idiotic majority want it. I'd be curious to know who won the ratings war last nite: The remake of Music Man, or the first hour reruns of the Simpsons ?.
Maybe "getting it" is a bad thing.

 

[KNWVIKING]

When TP was the hot topic on this board the general concensus was that animation was great and it had a good story. It bombs horribly.
JB2 comes out.Poor animation,poor story. It turns 15-17mil in four days, and only cost 20 mil to make.
Maybe our standards are to high.Maybe we are such a minority that Disney can't give us what we want and stay in business. Look at the "reality" shows the networks give us. Look at all the low-brow crap they are putting out because the idiotic majority want it. I'd be curious to know who won the ratings war last nite: The remake of Music Man, or the first hour reruns of the Simpsons ?.
Maybe "getting it" is a bad thing.