MovieChat Forums > Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) Discussion > Setting it in the jungle is retarded

Setting it in the jungle is retarded

posted 7 years ago by Mister Babadook (2684)
16 replies | jump to latest

The whole appeal behind the original movie was the stuff coming out of the games jungle and into the real world, into the city and wreaking havoc. When you put the kids in the jungle it just looks like Kong Skull Island as a comedy or something, hell the poster even looks like Kong Skull Island.

It looks no different than Journey To The Center of The Earth 2, or Land Of The Lost, or any other horrible jungle action comedy.

Also the original movie had a sense of real danger to it and heart, this looks like nothing but fart jokes and 12 year old humor. I don't see a single serious moment happening in this movie like in the original. In the original the two kids nearly died, they had real emotion, it wasn't played up as funny either.

[–] Granitodiaz (52) 7 years ago

Absolutely right

[–] DracTarashV2 (4493) 7 years ago

Yup, the setting is one of the things I was turned off by... at first. It’s also true that you can hardly tell it apart from other recent adventure movies set in the Jungle.

That being said, although I would’ve preferred a movie that was closer in tone to the old one, they had to do something totally different with this one. And by the looks of it, it payed off.

[–] ksi (49) 7 years ago

That is a trend that I can't understand, I personally have no problem with remakes that are about the same story or setting if they are really good, hell, even some frame by frame remakes are good, if it is not broken don't "fix" it. To me the problem with remakes is the amount of they are rehashing every year, that is unoriginal, you could have one or two remakes every 3 years or so and that might be OK, just this year there have been SO MANY remakes that I lost count.

They can't claim to be "original" when the movie is called the same even if you change the complete plot and setting, you are still ripping off an old movie, if they really wanted something different at least it would be called something else entirely like they tried in the past with Zathura in 2005.

[–] DracTarashV2 (4493) 7 years ago

The thing is, remakes have existed for as long as films have. Granted today there’s an unnecessary excess of them, but Hollywood being obsessed with remaking films and shows isn’t necessarily a new thing. Though I hear you, if more than a handful of them could be good, then there arguably wouldn’t be much of a reason to complain about Hollywood unoriginality (very few stories, be it movies or books, can truly be 100% original now anyway).

This new Jumanji isn’t necessarily a remake though... it is considered a continuation of the original. That might not make it better to certain people, but hey.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

Some beloved classics are remakes, like Wizard of Oz, and Scarface. That's just off the top of my head.

[–] Stratego (30511) 7 years ago

The Wizard of Oz is the adaptation of a book, like most remakes in the past.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

But Wizard of Oz had already been adapted to the screen before the Judy Garland version.

[–] Stratego (30511) 7 years ago

Yes, but it's technically just a new adaptation instead of a remake. And the older movies were silent and black and white. Rather understandable they wanted a new movie.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

A reboot, then, which is the other type of remake.

[–] Stratego (30511) 7 years ago

Well, a "reboot" means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning.

That's not really what it it is, it's just a new adaptation of the same source material.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

And that's still a remake, considering the story is being re-made.

In the context of DaracTarash's post about Hollywood remaking the same stories, the technical definitions of remake/reboot aren't really relevant.

[–] Stratego (30511) 7 years ago

It's only a "remake" of the book, not the previous movie, which may actually have been ignored completely.

Although there can certainly be too many adaptations of a book, the difference is that there can be a totally different interpretation and focus of the source material. You'll always have people who feel dissatisfied with previous adaptations.

But the point is that even though there have been remakes/reboots in the past, the trend is getting out of hand. Another point is that this movie isn't a remake of course, but like many remakes, reboots and sequels today has hardly any relation to the original except for the name, which it tries to capitalize on.

[–] ivankyazze (182) 7 years ago

Me personally I think they didn't have to be totally different with this one. They should've kept the board game aspect.

[–] DracTarashV2 (4493) 7 years ago

For the sake of argument, no, they didn’t HAVE to be different. But at the end of the day they went with an entirely new direction and with the video game aspect (nothing beats the cool board game, I’ll give you that), they took not only a more modern but convincing approach. At first I thought a video game version of Jumanji was a lame idea, yet it ultimately worked within the context of the movie.

[–] captainbucky (15252) 7 years ago

I agree. The original had a dark side to it. Scared the crap out of me when I was a kid. Very engrossing and awesome.

This looks like the Rock slapping around a nervous Kevin Hart (like Central Intelligence) and Jack Black making fart jokes like he did in his movie The Farts.

it would be ok if Rock wasn't in 600 movies a year, and because its the Rock you know there will be a sequel

[–] actionkamen (23176) 7 years ago

Are you sure The Rock is only in 600 movies this year? 'Cause it feels like IT'S OVER 9000!!!