Have you thought about watching Hazbin Hotel’s sister show Helluva Boss Or what about Amphibia or The Owl House because if you really enjoyed Gravity Falls your going to love those two

Neel Sethi plays Mowgli convincingly? He had literally no emotional range whatsoever and all his lines were delivered flatly.

Also, the end of this movie is much closer to the original book than the first movie of 67 🙂

@@leaness98 No it isn't. The book literally ends with Mowgli seeing a girl emerge from a village which makes him realize that the jungle can't accommodate his needs and so he decides to leave the jungle forever and then reunites with Messua.

Not to mention it won an Oscar for Best Visual Effects.

Yeah, this one and the beauty and the beast live action remake are both really good!!!😊❤👍 I agree 100%!

It wasn't just the urge. It was also the fact that his friends and family were dying of old age and he realized the jungle can‘t accommodate his needs.

You would be more likelier to find an orangutan in India than a species of ape that has been extinct for hundreds of thousands of years.

My personal headcannon is that Louie was an escaped circus orangutan or exotic pet..

@@stefansalvatierra4913 but how is he that big?

@@Egames_7 I mean in the original ‘67 film. And orangs are the second largest ape species behind gorillas..

Once and forever, Louie was a Disney invention. The Bandar Log monkeys in the book had no king or laws, so they kidnapped little Mowgli to be King and Law maker.

Also ironic because in the books, Baloo was the teacher of the Law. Here, he dismisses it as propaganda. But all versions of Baloo truly care for Mowgli in their own way, which is why he’s my favorite character..

@@stefansalvatierra4913 Yeah. Baloo is a great character

Bagheera was the more lazy one growing up as the pet of a prince which was a secret he entrusted to Mowgli. Kaa was actually a friend and helped out when the monkeys took him also Mowgli being immune to the hypnotism. Shere Khan was crippled or "lame" as it's called so wasn't the physical threat that he's shown to be rather he used manipulation.

@@animefan8591 True though Kaa also tried to eat Bagheera hence Bagheera needing Baloo and Mowgli to restrain him. And if Mowgli weren’t immune to Kaa’s gaze then I suspect that Kaa would have made the same attempt on him.

Perfectly demonstrates how stereotyped animals are. Baloo the stern teacher, but he's a bear and bears are suppose to be cute and careless. Bagheera the fun loving panther, but big, dark big cat is serious and strict. And finally Kaa. Good in the book... well, good(ish), but still a valuable ally. But of course, snake. And snakes are 'suppose' to be evil 😐

There’s also the fact it drew from the source material

The Little Mermaid had some nice twists as well

@@matityaloran9157 And yet it's even less accurate than the animated version.

@@vetarlittorf1807 I don’t think that’s entirely fair. The animals refer to fire as The Red Flower, the monkeys are called The Bandarlog and the “Strength of the Wolf is the pack” poem from the book is quoted verbatim

@@matityaloran9157 That doesn't make it more accurate. That's all superficial. It just means there are a handful of references with no narrative weight whatsoever. This movie is an insult to the works of Kipling. At least the animated version doesn't pretend to be what it isn't.

Same

Yes Mowgli is yet better

@@BartyCrouptonJr7745story-wise, yes

Better than the original? Lol. That's the hottest take I've seen in a long while.

@@karimion2157 The original is so much overrated. It was boring, the story was too fast, characters really not well written. Here, they have really a personnality.

@@BartyCrouptonJr7745 You are wrong. Firstly, they made Mowgli a bland Gary Stu, and not just because he can inexplicably construct extremely complex contraptions with no engineering background. In the original, Mowgli felt more like a real person with a turmoil to overcome. We sympathized with him because we can only imagine what it‘s like for a mere child to be forced to forever leave the only home he‘s ever known. We also sympathize with him because of his identity crisis. Although the movie didn‘t delve too deeply into it, we still got the gist that Mowgli‘s identity crisis stemmed from the fact that he knew he was human, but had no idea what a human is. This made him insecure, frustrated and rebellious because he kept imitating other animals in hopes of finding an identity with no success and he kept trying to prove that he belongs in the jungle with no success. It isn‘t until the ending when Mowgli sees another human being for the first time. He meets a girl from the village, Shanti, and imitates her and is able to relate to her. In that moment he realizes that he feels a connection to a fellow human being that he can never feel for an animal of the jungle. But in the remake? Mowgli is loved by everyone for no reason. We never get to see why Bagheera or the wolves loved him so much. Even King Louie respects him, in stark contrast to the original Louie, who had no interest in elevating Mowgli. Heck, Mowgli in the remake literally burns the jungle and he receives no consequence for it. He broke the jungle‘s most sacred law and was never punished for it. It doesn‘t matter that he put out the fire. If you burn someone‘s house and put out the fire, you still have to be punished for arson. In the book, Mowgli used fire to save Akela, but he was banished for it. And then there is the ending. What on earth was Favreau thinking?! Mowgli staying in the jungle shows a complete misunderstanding of the story. The original movie and even the books made it clear that Mowgli HAS to leave the jungle because the jungle has nothing to offer him but misery and loneliness. Not just because he will never find a mate in the jungle, but also because the jungle can‘t accommodate his psychological needs that the animals will never comprehend. Yes, I get that the message is meant to be nurture over nature, a recurring theme in Favreau works, but it doesn‘t work for this story for the reasons I mentioned. Mowgli staying in the jungle is basically saying that he never has to grow up. In the original, the jungle was a metaphor for childhood while the village was a metaphor for adulthood. Mowgli staying in the jungle is the equivalent of Wendy staying in Neverland. And of course, since Disney hates romance these days, they were compelled to deprive Mowgli of the love of his life. Mowgli is my main problem with the remake, but I also have problem with the other characters. While I‘m glad that the wolves got more screen time, the movie didn‘t give them much to do. Raksha is just...there. Akela only exists to die (and give Mowgli a thirst for vengeance, which is weird, because we are never shown any bonding moment between him and Akela). And Gray Brother, who was Mowgli‘s sidekick in the books, has no role whatsoever in the remake. Then there is Bagheera and Baloo. Bagheera is still a mentor but he‘s not the voice of reason and is stripped of almost all his personality. Same with Baloo, he‘s basically just Bill Murray playing himself. In the original, Baloo and Bagheera were foils to each other and learned from each other. Baloo learned to embrace responsibility and abandon his hedonistic lifestyle and Bagheera learned to live in the moment. But in the remake there is no chemistry between them whatsoever. In fact, none of the characters in the remake have any memorable chemistry. Speaking of chemistry, Mowgli and Baloo‘s relationship in the remake is barely visible. The movie tries to frame their relationship as best of friends, but that doesn‘t really work when Baloo is basically just being Bill Murray‘s typical deadpan schtick. I get that they were trying to have Baloo become more caring, but he never really stops feeling like he‘s indifferent towards everything. Like, when he tells Mowgli to leave, the movie tries to paint it as something that was hard on Baloo, but it never clicks because it never felt like Baloo cared about Mowgli in the first place even with that montage of them supposedly bonding. After all that, it feels like Mowgli‘s feelings for Baloo are unrequited. Then there‘s the movie‘s tonal problem. The movie just can‘t seem to decide what kind of movie it wants to be because it can‘t decide which source material it wants to follow. One scene it has the original‘s warm and family-friendly tone but in another scene it has the books‘ dark and intense tone. Heck, the movie can‘t even decide whether or not it wants to be a musical. Also, too fast? The pacing was one of the best things about the original movie.

@@vetarlittorf1807 I absolutely disagree on everything, but okay

Except you'd be more likely to find an orangutan in India than an animal that's been extinct for eons and would never be able to survive in modern climate and environments. Also, a gigantopithecus was not nearly as big as depicted in this movie. They were slightly larger than polar bears.

@@vetarlittorf1807 that may be true that the ecosystem of India could be hospitable for orangutans, but they don’t naturally live in India (hence my point) Also, Louie was that big as Gigantopithecus was about ten feet in height and weight half a ton. This is the first time this species has been featured in a movie as well as been mentioned.

@@demon0981 They could've easily explained an orangutan's presence as having escaped from human captivity. That would even add context to Louie's obsession with mankind and the control of fire. It would also be a neat reference to Bagheera's backstory in the book, where it was revealed that he used to be a pet of a Maharajah. And 10 ft is not as big as Louie was in the movie. Not to mention he looks more like an oversized modern orangutan than a gigantopithecus. And while scientists continue to debate what they looked like exactly, they most likely looked somewhat like an orangutan-gorilla hybrid. But either way, a gigantopithecus living in 19th century India is much less believable than an orangutan living there.

In what way does this "improve" anything upon the original? The original had compelling characters, a linear story, great soundtrack and an emotionally satisfying ending. Everything that the remake didn't have.

@@vetarlittorf1807 It gave mowgli an origin story, a reason of why shirkan hates the human and give a tense atmosphere, the jungle is very dangerous it ain't pretty and colorful as the animated

The book ends with Mowgli leaving the jungle for the village. The book acknowledged that Mowgli belongs with his own kind.

@@BratwurstOrca The Mowgli stories in The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling ended by saying he would one day leave The Jungle to return to the Man Village. I know there’s a sequel (though I haven’t read it) but that’s how the Mowgli stories in the first book end

Maybe that's why this movie has glaring tonal problems.

@@vetarlittorf1807 I like it though.

@@vetarlittorf1807 by the way have you seen the new Netflix Mowgli movie it’s pretty good it’s trying to be an authentic movie adaptation of the Mowgli‘s stories from the jungle book (The actual book not the movies)

Shere Khan was in no means in the right in any way. He only follows the Law when it suits him. According to the Law of the Jungle (if you read the original books), shifting one’s hunting grounds without warning is not permitted, it’s like showing up uninvited. And above all, hunting humans is utterly forbidden, as killing humans will only bring about retribution from the humans and destruction of anyone caught in the crossfire. Shere Khan is no jungle lord, but a crook and a bully, killing for pleasure and power, terrorizing the weak, and holding a family hostage after killing their leader in cold blood, their only crime being in caring for a boy whom he himself had orphaned to begin with. And he would not have stopped at killing Mowgli; he would have continued his vendetta against humans (whom he sees as a threat to his supremacy) until they have either killed him or destroyed the entire jungle in their efforts to do so. Maneaters don’t stop until they’re out down..

That makes no sense. You're more likely to find an orangutan in India than a gigantopithecus.

@@vetarlittorf1807 no orangutans live on islands separated from the parts of India these movies take place and again this is why they change to species at least according to the filmmakers.

@@vetarlittorf1807 but anyway that’s the reason why he’s so big in this movie.

@@t.o.toonstubetwo.4138 No. You're more likely to find an orangutan in India than an animal that's been fucking extinct for eons. Why don't they just throw a couple of dinosaurs in the movie while they're at it?

@@t.o.toonstubetwo.4138 No. You are more likely to find an orangutan in India than an animal that's been EXTINCT for eons.

Shere Khan (this version at least) was no victim. He hunts humans (and breaking the Jungle Law) only because he sees them as a threat to his supremacy in the jungle. None of that would have happened if he had never killed Mowgli’s father in the first place. And it’s fortunate for everyone in the jungle that Khan’s actions did not trigger the villagers to seek retribution and strike back in force (which is why hunting humans is forbidden..)

PS you should think about watching that one too and I still just like leaving cool comments so in case like you want to think about taking some of my other ideas too in my comments, but just to help out this channel get very popular as well. that’s why I like leaving cool comments.

You should think about adding more punctuation. I almost had a stroke listening to your yap session.

“By Red Flower Bagheera meant fire, only no creature in the Jungle will call fire by its proper name. Every beast lives in deadly fear of it, and invents a hundred ways of describing it.” -Excerpt from Mowgli’s Brothers by Rudyard Kipling

Kaa is female in my country's translation of the book, most likely because "snake" is a feminine word in my language. Same reason why Bagheera is female in the Russian translation of the book, since the Russian word for "panther" is feminine. I personally like the idea of Kaa being female better, since female snakes are more active than males. And I also like the idea of Kaa being a motherly figure to Mowgli. However, I hate that they made Kaa a villain in this movie. Yes, he was a villain in the original movie too, but at least they made up for that by giving him a fun personality and found a balance between being goofy and menacing and they fleshed out Mowgli and Kaa's prey and predator relationship pretty well. He also served as a good foil to Shere Khan, showcasing that Kaa, while vindictive and mischievous, is not evil. Because he's just trying to survive while Shere Khan is a sadist who is no different from all the trophy hunters that have targeted him. That being said, I think my favorite version of Kaa is the Cate Blanchett/Netflix version. In that version, she wasn't as motherly as I would have wanted, but she felt like an avatar of a Hindu goddess. An avatar that you would both love and fear at the same time. Someone you know that won't hurt you but still feel like you should choose your words carefully. She also hypnotizes with her coils rather than her eyes, just like in the book, by performing an exotic dance that would make a snake charmer think he's in control, but in reality, she is the one in control. But Disney unfortunately felt the need to pander to the western cultural view that snakes are evil instead of the Indian cultural view that snakes are noble.

Ain't nobody watching that shite.

Those are not live action. They're animated.

Yeah, and I think the reason why this one was so bad was because of how it was supposed to be better, but like if they re-created this entire movie, they have to make the jungle book too like the classic one though or make it more like the classic one a little bit because that’s what they were trying to go for, but it just didn’t seem like the classic one because it was more like one of those newer classics that they were going for like when they first we’re trying to make the jungle book like the cartoon one is the one I’m thinking of when they were trying to make that one plus you should do some of the other movies that I’ve mentioned to even if I didn’t mention that one or I did then I probably just forgot that I mentioned that one you should also think about watching Annie and the roll away adventure and also you should think about watching the fourth Annie movie that’s the one with the like kid, but she shows that she’s like different like in her own way and it was more of one of those like girl power style movies so that’s why I’m hoping they actually make a fifth Annie movie but they use the same girl like they did in the fourth one with like if you don’t know which one I’m talking about, it’s the one where like the person becomes like tries to become the president and that sort of stuff plus that’s another good movie if I didn’t mention that one too

This remake is not even close to being better.

10:43 kaa there had sage personality wise and good, while this kaa wants to eat him

kaa only tries to scare him to test him, like shows she could eat him if she wanted to

Same for Jungle Book 2016. I never liked the original of 1967, but I enjoyed the remake

THANK YOU! I am so glad someone brought up the clear problems.

Delusional much? Or I should say nitpicking. You do realize that the live action has to make some changes from the original right?

@@commandixnostalgia2321 The changes got to make sense. And in order to do that, you need to understand the story. Favreau didn't understand it and that's why the remake doesn't work.