The Jungle Book vs Mowgli - CGI Animals
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 сер 2020
- In this video i have compare all the CGI animals shown in The Jungle Book 2016 vs Mowgli 2018. Primary CGI characters are Shere Khan, Baloo, Bagheers, Kaa, Akela, Monkey People, Other Animals. Only the best Scenes of each characters is shown here to compare their originality.
I do not own these clips. These are just for information and entertainment purpose.
#thejunglebookvsmowgli
#mowglivsthejunglebook
#thejunglebook(2016)
#mowgli(2018)
#thejunglebookanimals
#mowgli
#baloo
#bagheera
#Sherekhan
#Kaa
#Monkeypeople
#junglebookmovievsmowglimovie
The animals look more real in The Jungle Book
But Animals in Mowgli are better actors .
True
@@Rogue_TheMimic No they're not. The Jungle Book was way better than Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle.
@@fearfulclan2007 in your opinion
Definetly
In the Jungle Book the animals look more real but in Mowgli the animals have better facial expressions. 🤷🏾♂️
Right , thats why Mowgli is better
@@Rogue_TheMimic No it's not. The Jungle Book was way better.
@@fearfulclan2007 it's their own opinion you have I right to tell them what's better and what's worse
@@0.721x well lone said it was better like a fact so...
Both are good
I personally love the difference in personalities between the two Shere Khans. Idris Elba's interpretation was commanding, imposing, and ruthless but still highly intelligent. He's portrayed almost like a force of nature and nobody would dare cross him alone. Sorta like a brutal dictator. Benedict Cumberbatch's version is straight up nightmare fuel. Unhinged, unpredictable, and calculating. If Elba's interpretation is like a dictator, Cumberbatch's version is like a serial killer.
That's quite an accurate explanation dude. Bravo!
Both however share the same hatred of humans and hearts of evil.
nice description i enjoyed both but my favorite is benedict especially with his awesome voice cracking and mixing with roar sounds makes me laugh everytime 🤣🤣
Which is kinda the point, because in Kipling's stories Shere Khan was a pure force of evil.
Same for the two Baloos to me.
Bill Murray give us an easy-going friendly hedonist while Andy Serkis is a well-meaning but stern drill sergeant.
If you ask me, this is why having several versions of the same story ain't so bad.
I think the main thing about the animals in Mowgli is that they have more human eyes and are designed to be more expressive. I imagine Serkis went this directions because: A) that's what he's good at, and B) so that the viewer can connect more with animal characters. While on the other hand, The Jungle Book opted for more photo realistic animals.
Exactly. The animals themselves represent human personalities and they were designed to channel expressions effectively, which could not be done with photorealistic animals. You would have to dumb down the dialogue and delivery in order to match the realistic animal performance, and that's just very limiting imo.
Makes sense considering the fact that most of Disney's live action movies are kinda lifeless and makes the fanbase question the existence. Then again, I wonder how the planned Lilo and Stitch movie would go down.
@@orangeman3220 Which perfectly defeats the purpose of making it live action to begin with. Why make it live action if half your characters have to be cartoonish and fake looking to work properly?
I connected more with the jungle book an8maos cause they looked just like animals and I love animals, but the animals in mowgli just look like abominations. It works for sheer khan it makes him look scarier. But for baloo it just looks so weird. Imagine an animal face put in a human body, it just doesn’t work
the problem is that, at least for me, it falls directly in the uncanny valley. i don tknow what people thought but those animals look ugly like baloo looks like a terrifying 65 year old furry. it takes so much out of the story because characters i should feel connected to look like disgusting monsters for no reason.
I like both versions. Sure, the CGI of the Disney might be more realistic... but I've enjoyed the Mowgli movie as well. It followed more faithfully the book story.
I honestly liked the way Sher Khan in Mowgli movie actually limbed, with his right leg, it almost felt like he was walking withclosed knuckles, seemed kinda threatening.
But i dont like sher khan in mowgli
@@injusticemobile2962 who?
@@jvramirez1577 have you never seen jungle book
Mowglis animals look ugly in my opinion
In terms of CGI, The Jungle Book is better. The animals look and act how they really would in real life. But when it comes to actual story, Mowgli is MUCH better. It's my favorite of the two, to be honest. It's darker elements are what make it fantastic, and the voice acting is far better in my opinion.
Edit: Mowgli is the indisputable winner. Also, Baloo's accent is absolutely fantastic in that movie.
Based
To say that the voice acting is far better is not true
@@captainsimp8864 to say it isn’t better is not true.
Baloo go WAaaaAgh
@@captainsimp8864 to say or not to say is true and untrue
i actually prefer the Kaa in Mowgli. She feels much more neutral and has such a wise, yet threatening nature to her
That was Kaa’s original personality was. She was threatening but was extremely loyal to those who earned her trust.
But I hate the human lips on kaa in mowgli. It looks so weird, like…snakes don’t have lips! I mean they do, but not human ones. In mowgli, Kaa looks like she’s had plastic surgery 🤣
Isn’t that Cate Blanchett 😮
Would love to had seen alas rescue Mowgli and the gang from the monkeys like in the book.
Lol in reality kaa was male 🤣
Both are very enjoyable in their own ways. Obviously Disney's version has the better CGI and aims for the animals to look more accurate facially and all that.
But Mowgli definitely has the vast characters and darker vibes much more loyal to the book.
It's hard for me to choose between them tbh
It's what Disney does to most classics , retelling them their own way, but you still love them as much as the original
@@drawinaminutewithdr.rajasa8861 Are you suggesting that The Lion King, Mulan and Aladdin remakes accomplish this? 😬
@@wo3701
no, i actually forgot about the remakes 😅
But I did like the Jungle Book remake though, can't say about everyone else!
It's no OBVIOUS just because it looks more realistic
Baloo- I like to eat a lot so I can sleep a lot 😊
Also Baloo- THIS IS THE JUNGLE YOU HUNT OR YOU BECOME THE HUNTED!!!
Mowgli Baloo is a lot more serious. Jungle Book Baloo is just cool and laid back
Because that's how Baloo is in the books
Baloo is WAY better in Jungle Book 2016! All of them are!
2016 - Cuddly, adorable and nerfed.
2018 - Badass monster and a warrior.
@@ryujisusapphire9511 I'll take 2018 anyday
Baloo = Peter Venkman vs Gollum
Bagheera = Trevor Slattery vs Batman
Shere Khan = Heimdall vs Doctor Strange
Kaa = Black Widow vs Hela
Ceacer not gollum
I laughed at this here comment
you put Trevor Slattery instead of Don Logan?
And now, all of them appear in the MCU.
@@cliffpattymahu3390 Ceasar*
Mowgli has a dark and more realistic feel to it, while The Jungle Book had amazing CGI. Mowgli also allowed the animals to have great facial expressions so to make a perfect recreation, "The Jungle Book" would have Mowgli's dark and realistic storytelling element, and have the CGI Jungle Book had.
Also Mowgli's Shere Khan fucking terrified me, while it looked like a plushy the voice acting and jump scares just made my spine crawl
😊😊
one thing I like a lot more about Mowgli is the way they made Kaa, I feel like she fits way better as well with the voice and effects they placed on her voice.
Far more faithful to the book too
Yeah Cate nails as Kaa and Scarlett is good but she needs a more *hissy* voice
I agree, i love Cate Blanchett's performance and voice acting as Kaa.
@@RandomUA-camEnjoyer i think Scarlett's voice is more tempting and hypnotic, and thats what kaa is about. Cate is fantastic, but i think for this role Scarlett fits better.
The way I see it.
The Jungle Book has amazingly realistic CGI with how they are shown.
While Mowgli has more of a dynamic feel to it style, like an action story with more expression and personality.
I prefer The Jungle Book 2016 and The Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story.
@@fearfulclan2007 same.
@@fearfulclan2007 same here
Personally, I like The Jungle Book better. They got the legend Idris Elba as Sheerkhan
Mowgli is also closer to kipling's book
Both versions are great, Shere Khan was way more of a tank in the Jungle Book compared to the newer adaptation though.
Yeah, in Mowgli, he's just an animal who hates humans, where as in The Jungle Book, he's basically the Devil and everyone is terrified of him.
He's a beastt
@@scorpion40k in which version version is he not a monster 😳
@@omegasensei382 Neither. No matter which version it is, Sher Khan is always a monster. The only question is which one is the lesser of two evils.
@@scorpion40k I most care about character depth than who is more or less monster
I prefer the 2018 Kaa since she's the closest we're ever gonna get to a live-action interpretation who's closer to the book.
True, but u gotta admit Scarlett was in her bag in the jungle book💯🤙🏿
@@808Wixop yessir id let her eat me if she wanted to
@@Ice-fy3vk You realize in the book, Kaa was basically Gandalf as a snake.
@@Godzillakingofkaiju1 you’re totally right. Never thought of that comparison though. Wise, old, mischievous, loyal, and not everyone trusted him. Yep Gandalf.
@@Godzillakingofkaiju1 yeah kaa was the smart one of their group
The fact that Disney gave The Jungle Book characters more facial expressions than The Lion King movie is disappointing.
The faces of the animal's in Mowgli looks to humanlike it's uncanny.
That’s because they used human face tracking to get more expressions
Glad I'm not the only one who thought this!
but the story's better
They should made the lion king movie remake to make their facial expression humanlike like in the cartoons
It is if you don't want that to look like the live action Lion king
Jungle book animals:Look like real life animals.Mowgli:The animals look like monsters.LOL
Mowgli has elements from the book that the disney version doesn't have
@@walterthedog441 Not disputing that. But the animals in Mowgli are some of the most uncanny valley things I've ever seen.
@@mechanicobra it's just my opinion
at least they're monsters that have actual facial expressions, but hey, personal preference...
@@walterthedog441 in my opinion the animals in mowgli were more realistic
I personally think that Mowgli's animal designs that vaguely resemble humans is how Mowgli sees them. He was raised by animals after all, but I might be wrong
The Jungle Book CGI + Mowgli Storyline = Perfect
Both films are good but Mowgli is more faithful to the original book while 2016 film is a mix of the original 1967 cartoon and the original book
Actually when you see animals in Jungle book are completely CGI, where as in Mowgli they've done motion capture with facial expressions. Anyone wondered why baloo's face has resemblance with that of Andy serkis'. That's the reason. Bagheera - it's Bale, Shere Khan - Cumberbatch.
It just looks weird to me, the animals in jungle book are totally cg but still somehow feel way more real to me Becuase the ones in mowgli just look off putting and look like something that just shouldn’t exist.
They all look like they belong to that awful Sonic universe 😂
@@jonafangk1288 🤣
@@jonafangk1288 lmaoo yes exactly
Krsxhuio.
The animals in Mowgli may be uncanny and unsettling with their human faces, but that version tells a more heart-wrenching story closer to the original book that you don't get with the Disney versions. I like them both for different reasons!
the duality of Bagheera:
"You must be the worst wolf ive ever seen"
"You are special."
Am I the only one who finds the 2016 version better than the 2018 version
No
2016 version is cheap version 😂
@@Rogue_TheMimic matter of opinion. The jungle book is better to me
@@Rogue_TheMimic if anything mowgli is the cheap one. But again opinion based
@@Rogue_TheMimic in the jungle book the animals had better CGI and they actually looked like animals but that’s your opinion
Jungle book looks better obviously. But Mowgli has more emotion, so I like both
Scarlet Johansson playing a snake is kinda doing something to me.
Black Widow got nothing on Galadriel.
Johansson obviously sounds seductive as kaa
@@anthonyvega-fujioka4464 cry harder
@@AryanSingh-yy9mw he’s right ya know 👀
@@harrambou9468 yeah, I know that Attakrus is right...
What made the rebooted Planet of the Apes trilogy so memorable? It's because, despite the excellent images, the apes displayed emotion and had human-like eyes, and one even smiled. So it's not the photo realism that's important, but the quality of the CGI. If Andy Serkis' version had been of the same brilliance, this would have been the clear winner. The CGI, on the other hand, isn't horrible; it's just a touch poor in comparison. In terms of plot and acting, I preferred Mowgli over The Jungle Book. I truly hope they do a Mowgli sequel with the same core characters.
Well said. I wouldn’t mind if Serkis got more money to do a deep edit of this film on the animal characters like what George Lucas did with his original trilogy.
Yeah. Caesar is a brilliant genius work that we won't get for maybe decades in the future.
The difference is Apes already have facial structures that more closely resemble human faces so motion capture doesn’t come off as jarring as with cats or wolves. I think this was the main distinction between how the movies were received.
I do agree with your point that the expressions do add to the character overall though!
I like jungle book better
Agreed
@@fearfulclan2007 disagreed
@@trashbag1146 Mowgli: Legand of the Jungle is nothing like the book. The Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story(1998) was definitely like the book, plus it had better acting.
@@fearfulclan2007 the movie is closer to the kinplin story ( I think that’s his name) at least that’s what a lot of people say in other videos
@@trashbag1146 The Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story is actually closer to the book than Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle.
They look like they all went to a barber shop in the back room before they went to the forest
Honestly, I feel like the wolves felt a little awkward and out of place in Mowgli, but every other animal looks fine. Especially Bagheera and shere khan, who were animated pretty well imo.
Both movies really have inaccurate Indian Wolves. In Jungle Book they just use Grey Wolves from Northern Region (American/European Wolves) and in the Mowgli they simply just looks like Huskies lol
Here are versions of the characters that i prefer
1. Mowgli (2018)
2. Bagheera (2018)
3. Baloo (2018)
4. Shere Khan (2016), but interms of voice, personality, & character I'd go with Benedict Cumberbatch's take on Shere Khan.
5. Kaa (2016)
6. The Pack (2016)
Tbh both movies where really good i can't really decide which one is the best, jungle book gets points for the realistic animals and i liked the darker and realistic plot in mowgli also the characters interpretations even though the cgi desings for some animals was kind of uncanney valley (Mowgli's Baloo scared the shit out of me) i like how they have more expressions
Scarlet's version of Kaa is terrifying. With such a soothing voice it's impossible to tell that she has the worst intentions for you.
Looking back at the cgi in Mowgli and how the expressions on each animal’s faces are well done, I always wish that Disney would use that technique as a style for their 2019 remake of The Lion King
Shere Khan had more presence in the jungle book, believeable villain with a vendetta that made the story better, made any scene he was in that more entertaining to watch. He was a calculating, cold but honorable character that definitely made well in his promises. His interactions with the characters definitely made it interesting as he is hunter who kills for power but respects laws and traditions but will break them to keep the others safe.
I think the Jungle Book got the perfect balance between the emotionless yet realistic look of the Lion King remake and the expressive yet more cartoony look of Mowgli
I agree.
Disney Shere Khan with Benedicts voice would have been dope
Jungle book: you must be the very worst wolf I’ve ever seen
Mowgli: you are ✨special✨
2016: you must be a very worst wolf I've ever seen 😒😤
2018: you are special ❤😁
Tbh both movies are very well done for different reasons, jungle book is obviously more kid friendly while mowgli is closer to the book, also the faces on the animals in mowgli are pretty damn creepy
As much as the faces being weird is a thing, they used mo-cap so it's honestly really good looking. Plus it allows more emotions to show, which is always more important
@@blitz4779 it's cool but still kinda creepy
Definitely a tough choice but Kaa’s interpretation in The Jungle Book is definitely creepier. When it got to that scene in the movie where Kaa shows up everything turned dark almost like a scene from a horror movie
To be honest… the movie “Mowgli” the animals faces look like human faces 😂
Yes
CGI Wise The Jungle Book. Story wise Mowgli. I love the darker tone of Mowgli. Overall both are good but Mowgli just went that extra mile.
I love the difference in design. The animals in jungle book look fluffy, or well good which is fine and the animals in Mogli looks like they had lived a life fighting. Hair with missing parts, worn, weathered and dirty, also fine. I like them both.
Disney's Jungle Book has that childlike gaze with some realism, Mowgli has realism gaze from a perspective of a scared child trying to survive and prove himself
Balhoo in Mowgli looks badasss while in The Jungle Book he looks cuddly, adorable and nerfed.
I hate how everyone in the comments is like *"Jungle Book looks more realistic, so it wins I guess."*
That is the exact same sentiment that brought us the Lion King 2019, and that movie was horrible because of it. Realistic Animals cannot act, because they're Animals. Mowgli has a wonderful art style, the perfect blend of Animal X Human features, that is both striking, and allows the animals to emote in ways real Animals can't. I can remember Bahloo, Khan, and Bahgeera's faces from Mowgli, because they're are memorable faces, unlike Jungle Book, where they don't have memorable faces, they have generic animal faces.
Realism doesnt always have to be the goal, CGI being believable ≠ CGI being realistic.
Had Andy Serkis directed the Lion King 2019, with the same design team, that Movie would be a Hell of a lot better, I'll tell you.
Jungle Book's Baloo acts like a chill dude.
Mowgli's Baloo acts like a drunk head.
hes an army sargent
I actually liked the Mowgli story better and also because of how more serious it was, its like more for adults considering how much more brutal and violent shere khan is. Although the jungle book definitely had better cgi and more realistic looking animals
Every charakter in the jungle book looks better. In mowgli they look like they are on something
True
I agree, but the story is just like in the book
But they have more emotions.
Story prefered : Mowgli
CGI prefered : The Jungle Book
Kinda love both though.
Crazy bow Bagheera is hard on Mowgli in the Jungle Book movie and Baloo is nice asf. But in the Mowgli movie, Bagheera is more kind and Baloo is more rough
I would only choose Mowgli because Benedict Cumberbatch acted as Shere Khan. ❤️
Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle (2018) is the indisputable winner. Motion capture technology enhanced the animals invaluably; they benefited tremendously from the nuances of their actors' performances.
Naw.
@@MarquisVonMonster yeahh
@@MarquisVonMonster it has elements from the book that the disney's version doesn't have
@@walterthedog441 but they look creepy. Especially baloo.
@@tbltpianoandmidis383 Andy wanted the animals to look like humans
The Jungle Book is overall a better looking movie, but Mowgli had a better story and better characters. Mowgli felt so much more intense and actually felt like an adult version of the Jungle Book.
I kind of hated the way that the animals in Mowgli looked more human instead of being themselves
Both movies had stuningly beautiful CGI in them. My personal favorite was Shere Khan from Mowgli. Even though Jungle book had more realistic faces, his design and expression in Mowgli made him even more mennecing
The only thing i was confused of in both movies is why they made Kaa a female in both movies
makes her more mind controlling sounding imo
Because Kaa is ridiculously big, and female snakes are bigger than the males
@@fabiana7157 didn’t know that. Huh, the more you know
@@tmntgirl4life despite the gender swap, she's far closer to the book as well. Plus, yeah the female voice is way more controlling
@@blitz4779 yep Mowgli’s kaa was closer to the book. Huge fan of the original book and was so happy Andy Serkis bringing the original dark stories to life. Hope to have a sequel with the other short stories curious on how they are going to handle the Red Dog story
Bagheera in TJB : black panther
Bagheera in Mowgli : master Splinter
Baloo in TJB : cool and funny
Baloo in Mowgli : ANGRY
The Mowgli designs are really interesting. Like the designers went out on a limb with them. They're weird-looking, way less realistic and kinda uncanny with the way they're made to look more human, but IMO it's a worthy payoff. That more human face allows for just _so much more_ expression from them, which is much more important to good storytelling than photorealism is.
It's hard to word, even in more subtle clips, it actually looks more like they're speaking naturally. Look at each Akela at 0:32 as they deliver their voice lines. Mowgli's Akela looks way less like a realistic wolf, but has these subtle shifts of expression to his delivery that a person would make, gives weight to what he's saying. Meanwhile TJB's just looks like a wolf moving its mouth to the voice line.
And the difference in Bagheera's expression at 0:15. In TJB, you can glean that something tense is going on only by the unexplained moment of silence followed by him saying "down"--visually, he just looks like a panther, existing. Meanwhile Mowgli's Bagheera has a distinct look of distrust or concern about him, such that you don't even need a voice line to communicate tension. Showing to telling.
Not to say TJB is bad by any means. It's probably the best Disney CGI remake. It has its strengths to Mowgli, and frankly the animals in it just kinda look better. But I love the uniqueness of the Mowgli designs. They were risky but I think they work really well, and draw me into the story much more.
1:03 is so funny to me. TJB Balloo is such a teddy bear and then Mowgli Balloo comes in shouting like a military commander
For me I choose the story, message and theming more than the effects and for me it's Mowgli that wins. I like The Jungle Book (2016) but I'm not a fan of including songs in the film when it seemed like it was going more for a serious tone, the songs work better in the lighter 1967 version. Mowgli feels more stand alone and unique whereas The Jungle Book clearly is trying to set up a sequel.
Man who here hasn't wished Scarlett Johansson would say they could stay with her.
Disney made picture perfect animals, which takes away the emotional expression from the original, while Mowgli has them looking less realistic but with more personality
The Disney version looks SOOOOO much better in terms of quality and design, but Mowgli actually has some style to it outside of just "realism", which I find interesting
Love the emotion and huminoid features of the animals in Mowgli, so much better than the other one.
i don't necessarily hate the less realistic designs of Mowgli, but I hate that they all have human eyes... makes it look wrong
I love Jungle Book 2016 wayyyyyyy better! Literally everything is better in that(my opinion)
The Jungle Book is just so objectively better
Jungle book CGI dose look great however mowgli is kinda more convincing because kid actor ronan chand is actually interacting with the other cast rather then talking to complete CG render I thought was a good idea to use motion capture feels more natural then using an sound booth(also love the detail of seeing actors faces so cool)
Both movies were incredible. I specifically am more geared towards Mowgli, just because it’s darker and more intense. I think it highlights a lot of the animalistic and human elements more effectively, especially Mowgli’s connection with the environment and the pack. Mowgli is very much a more involved film. Hence why it’s more complicated to process. Mowgli was also much more emotional and deeply rooted.
Plus this was directed by Andy Serkis. Makes sense. In terms of tone and direction.
In short, I always say that Jungle Book is for kids and then Mowgli is for adults.
Yes Disney’s CGI maybe better but keep in mind it is Netflix. Budget wise.
CGI of The Jungle Book + Story of Mowgli = the perfect film
The environment in Mowgali actually looks like an Indian Jungle. The Jungle Book’s jungle mostly look like a fantasy land.
Mowgli has its style and keeps it consistent through the whole movie, Disney's Jungle Book looks like real animals, quite impressive.
Disney's 2016 live-action version of Shere Khan is my favorite.
It's always hilarious how someone will make a video comparing CGI, and yet everyone always ends up making it about the quality of the stories.
Both movies CGI is Outstanding 🤩🤩🤩
Jungle book: better CGI
Mowgli: better performance, motion capture, story, and faithfulness to the book
Jungle book has a better LOOK, but the acting isn't all that food while in mowgli they were more focused on the performance and story telling which to me is what matters in a movie.
Jungle book is a polished ball of dirt while mowgli is an uncut diamond.
Preach! Can’t say it better myself
Solid comparison and makes sense. Lord knows which I perfer
Disney is Disney for a reason
IF I had a nickel for every cgi junglebook adaptation I'd have two nickels, which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice
haven't watched both but i prefer jungle books realistic cgi. mowgli gives me uncanny valley vibes from the faces
I love both approaches. The Jungle Book is definitely more photorealistic but Mowgli’s are a little more cartoony and are able to emote as such. Not that they don’t emote in Jungle Book, just definitely different styles
Mowgli shere khan is my least favorite he doesn't look that powerful with the broken paw the jungle book shere khan is what I'm looking for he's powerful and he took on all the wolves
But it's true to the story. Shere Khan was lame, which is why he was called 'Lungri'.
No matter how powerful a male adult tiger could be, there is no chance it could scare away or defeat a pack of wolves.
Disney's Shere Khan is so cheesy overpowered
he was called the lame one in the book and wasn't feared but hated because of the trouble he caused with humans. it was the humans the jungle feared not khan. In the book, Mowgli was hitting him in the head with a torch pretty much saying "beat it stupid cat" he was not powerful.
@@Toxic_Honey666 yeah in the "book" not the live action one
@@SHIMO_EDITZ yeah but mowgli is focused on the book I respect your opinion but no way a tiger can take on an entire pack of wolves ge could probably take out 4-5 but he'd die pretty quickly.
Mowglii definitely has the better portrayals. Idris Elba plays a fearsome Shere Khan, but Cumberbatch's Shere Khan just steals the scene.
Mowgli is just animals with human faces on em. Jungle Book wins for making animal characters look like animals
Mowgli's designs actually makes the characters look distinct and not just another 3d wolf or bear. You look at them and you know the kind of character they are they don't all look the same and can express emotion a lot better.
Especially the tiger, instead of being a Scar copy he has facial scars but with an extra wounded leg making his reason to hate humans more than just a simply scratch over his eye.
i like the voice acting and realistic face of junggle book but i prefer the cartonic human face of anima in mowgli
Personally, I feel like Mowgli wins in almost every way including cgi and character design. Sure, Jungle Book by Disney looks more realistic, but if I wanted photo realism I could just watch a documentary. When I watch a movie I'm not here to say "oh wow, look at how real that looks" for an hour and 30 minutes. I'm here to connect, to feel, and to be scared and endeared, to experience, and Mowgli deliverd in that regard so much better.
The characters do look uncanny, yes, but not to an aggregious or even noteworthy degree, where it constantly sucks me out of the movie. It draws me in. The characters actually can express their feelings and wishes to a surprisingly minute degree. The subtle expressions on their faces are done beautifully and always convey exactly what is meant to be conveyed. Nothing looks out of place or left to misinterpretation, their emotions are on display as much as ours are as people. Their textures and anatomy are on point enough to blend in perfectly with the actually live action Mowgli and other people, but still leave tons of room for expression and nuance.
The most "uncanny" designs are definitely Kaa and Shere Khan, but to a degree it works in their favor. Both are unnervingly, unsettling portrayed in the movie, and if they had normal designs it would get lost in translation and seem a bit overkill. But with Kaas strongly human face, Shere Khans long and tilted eyes and is dragging paw that makes constant sharpening noises, their voices and performances match up and leave the audience unnerved whenever they appear on screen, and that's the point. I wish Disney would take a page out of this movie, on how to do live action right without loosing character and expression, because Mowgli nails it. Some aspects of their design could be dialed back a little, but it works given how much darker Mowgli is from Disney's The Jungle Book.
I loved "Mowgli; Legend of the Jungle", yet do not want to ever rewatch it.
The cgi is better in jungle book but mowgli has better voice acting
Voice and Facial both actings
Aah I disagree but ok
There’s reason why I don’t like Mowgil.
1- The cgi is okay, but jungle book is better.
2- The fact they have human eyes gave me the chills.
3) The voice actors were okay, but I preferred Jungle books actor, they fit.
4) It’s a bit dark, especially when Bhoot’s died.
Are you a kid?
@@Hakkkkkkkaiii Bro what, it’s my opinion.
The 2018 animals all look like humans, it's uncanny as hell
Mowglis animals have much more personality. They're faces were made to look like their actors, while still looking like animals. It's pretty cool
Vintage disney lovers : " The junglebook is way better"
Classic book lovers : " My... My... How you've grown!!!"
Kaa changed his gender in a snap XD
Mowgli's designs are uncanny
The animals in Mowgli look like those animal snapchat filters
Someone said that Baloo's face in Mowgli looked extremely realistic, like wtf! I guess they've never seen a real bear lol. Jungle book is far superior in terms of CGI. Mowgli has better storyline but honestly the CGI makes it hard to watch
The animal characters in 'Mowgli' look ridiculous. It's hard to take that movie seriously when they main characters look like clowns.
😂😂😂😂
Jungle book animals look more animated (and more like animals) but Mowgli animals look more like they have human faces so they’re a bit more expressive to humans.
the Disney movie has better CGI but the "Mowgli" movie has more personality and grit ! the animal's expressions are on point !