I wish more care had been taken to have accurate animals in the jungles of India were the film takes place. I know Louie was an inaccuracy from the cartoon as orangutans don't live in India but they could have explained he escaped from a zoo or circus, though in this film they just make him a Gigantopithicus. There should not have been tucans, antelope, and the elephants should have been Indian elephants not African.
shareActually there are antelope in India. They also used the incorrect species of rhinoceros and added the Crested Porcupine/African Porcupine which is only native to the African savannah. They added a savannah in India which is not possible. They also put Indian wolves and Timber wolves into a single wolf pack when timber wolves are only native to the Americas.
shareWow...kinda going a little far into the critique? I mean, there's a boy who was raised by a wolf pack and can speak to animals, and we're crying inaccurate because of what species of animals were used? It's a Disney movie, it doesn't claim to be 100% accurate...
shareyes, but... when they put all that effort into making their CGI look so "real", shouldn't they at least get the other details right? also, it IS a Disney film... which means, this is a company KNOWN for it's live action animal docs for years, and they should have a team working on this. otherwise, go back to cell animation and have fun!
shareYour comment is virtually meaningless since, if you read this entire thread, you can see that actually there was accuracy and most of the claims otherwise are themselves not accurate.
sharetucans
They also used the incorrect species of rhinoceros and added the Crested Porcupine/African Porcupine which is only native to the African savannah
They added a savannah in India which is not possible.
I think in the same way that the great majority of contemporary American sci-fi and action films are wildly scientifically inaccurate (because the great majority of their domestic audience is too woefully scientifically illiterate to notice or care), so too does this Jungle Book adaptation feel free to be ecologically inaccurate – because they're sure that the great majority of their domestic audience is equally ignorant of Indian fauna.
Sad to say, I've not visited India myself, but I have benefited from a keen life-long interest in books, wildlife photography, and the great tradition of UK natural history documentaries – and so the glaring ecological inaccuracies pointed out already stuck out like a sore thumb for me too, as well as...
• Bagheera (a melanistic Indian leopard) is at least two times too large – the size of an African lioness
• Kaa (an Indian rock python) is around three times too big – the size of a South American green anaconda
• Baloo (an Indian sloth bear, as explicitly mentioned by Bagheera) is the wrong species and again way too big – portrayed as a brown bear
• King Louie (a Disney introduction, absent in the original Kipling) is supposed to be a Gigantopithecus – a giant ape genus, already extinct for scores of millennia before his temple dwelling was built by people
I guess the 'Super Size Me' junk culture also feels free to bugger about with the sizes of extant species, and even to rope in an extinct giantic animal on a whim.
That said, all kudos is due to the collective creative genius behind the modelling, lighting, animation, and rendering of the Indian forest and its animals – being immersed in such wonderfully recreated landscapes and fauna was a truly great thrill.
And yes, I know all the old lame critiques of such observations may very well resurface – it's just a kid's film, willing suspension of disbelief failure, intellectual pedantry, etc., &c. However, since we've such wonderful CGI technology now available, and also the by-product opportunity to educate children of the world about the glorious Indian forest ecology at the same time as they're enjoying a rip-roaringly enjoyable tale, why not do so with some respect and fidelity to the fauna species who actually live there?
However, since we've such wonderful CGI technology now available, and also the by-product opportunity to educate children of the world about the glorious Indian forest ecology at the same time as they're enjoying a rip-roaringly enjoyable tale, why not do so with some respect and fidelity to the fauna species who actually live there?
Wait, you mean this isn't a documentary?
WE GOT MOVIE SIIIIIGN!
The wrong animals also bothered me, but I don't remember any tucan. Maybe you mistook the hornbill for it? They are actually native from India. I think I saw a well-known American bald eagle, though.
shareNot a bald eagle, a brahminy kite.
Which ''wrong'' species bothered you then, as all of the animals appearing in the movie are native to India. Well, the gigantopithecus isn't anymore obviously.
African elephants and the grizzly or brown bear, for example. Yes, they are supposedly Indian elephants and a sloth bear, but they don't look like these.
sharegSReis posted:
African elephants and the grizzly or brown bear, for example. Yes, they are supposedly Indian elephants and a sloth bear, but they don't look like these.
The movie clearly depicts African-size elephants in the movie. While there are elephants in India, they tend to be rather smaller in size compared to African elephants.
Elephants are the largest living terrestrial animals. African elephants stand 3–4 m (10–13 ft) and weigh 4,000–7,000 kg (8,800–15,400 lb) while Asian elephants stand 2–3.5 m (7–11 ft) and weigh 3,000–5,000 kg (6,600–11,000 lb).[8] In both cases, males are larger than females.[9][12] Among African elephants, the forest form is smaller than the savannah form.[16]
True, and interesting, but the CGI animals in the film mostly were disproportionately huge or became so, at some part of the film.
shareConsidering that they had a gigantowhatever (King Louie) in the movie, I naturally assumed that this movie did not take place in the modern world. In fact, did they even explicitly state in the movie (I'm not asking about the book - They are two separate entities) where in the world and during what time period the story takes place? A lot of people seem to think India (simply because the book is based in India), but was India actually identified in the movie? Or is it possible that it was an entirely different time period and area of the world than most are assuming?
shareAnd the animals spoke English.
shareYou have no idea where you are talking about,
The elephant were Indian elephants. It's quite easy to tell the difference.
There were no tucans. There was an Indian greater hornbill though.
The antilopes were nilgai and blackbuck, both native to India.
Get your facts straight and educate yourself before making statements like this.
justinjacobs posted:
...and the elephants should have been Indian elephants not African
The movie clearly depicts African-size elephants in the movie. While there are elephants in India, they tend to be rather smaller in size compared to African elephants.
Elephants are the largest living terrestrial animals. African elephants stand 3–4 m (10–13 ft) and weigh 4,000–7,000 kg (8,800–15,400 lb) while Asian elephants stand 2–3.5 m (7–11 ft) and weigh 3,000–5,000 kg (6,600–11,000 lb).[8] In both cases, males are larger than females.[9][12] Among African elephants, the forest form is smaller than the savannah form.[16]