I never thought so.

It's not like Disney's Jungle Book is ever present in the public zeitgeist and national consciousness. 2+ years is enough separation and the look/appearance is distinct enough from Disney's remake. This isn't A Bugs Life/Antz or Deep Impact/Armageddon.

You're right. It's instead a Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves/Robin Hood scenario. Doesn't matter how long between versions, when you've got a good one, you don't need another! Mowgli will suffer because of The Jungle Book, which only came out 2 years ago, and made $364m!!! so enough people saw it and liked it to not need another one for at least a decade.

But WB's rendition also doesn't look anything special or good. You can't make darker version of a kids book, it generally doesn't work.

But it was still only two years ago and was the fifth biggest film of the year. Just because it's not a classic doesn't mean it hasn't been seen by tons of people and isn't still remembered.



It looks pretty much the same as the Disney one and 2 years is not enough.


No, it's even worse than those.

Well, Tarzan had a good run so there's precedent.

Not expecting $200m+ DOM but if the film underwhelms it will be based on execution, not premise. IMO. If it's good, people will be smart enough to realize this is a different take and won't punish the studio for it. In the end, WB had no choice. Mowgli was well into production when Disney's The Jungle Book filmed. Disney beat WB to theaters and so WB had to wait.

Well The Legend of Tarzan could be compared to Disney's Jungle Book and it still fell WAY short of the later on a HIGHER budget. The darker versions of a kids property would in 90% of the cases not maximize the audience. I do think if they brought this one out BEFORE the Disney version it would have done $200m but its too soon for another take on the franchise specially when a family sequel (of the same topic) drops a few months before this.

I just knew his reply would throw the budget in there somewhere. Completely irrelevant to the debate.

Its one of the points and it didn't set the BO on fire. I brought the budget in conversation because clearly WB expected more out of it when they signed off that budget.

Again, that has nothing to do with it generally not working to make a darker version of a kids book. lilmac proved that there's precedent. It ended there. But no...of course, you have to carry it on, aimlessly bringing up irrelevant things like the budget. If Tarzan can do well, so can Mowgli. Moviegoers are not caring what the budget is before they choose to see it.

WB has to just hope for the best. It would be foolish to not release the movie because there was a vaguely similar version 2.5 years earlier. Both films were being developed at the same time. It’s just that Disney beat them to the punch.

They could force Disney to push back Jungle Book 2 by releasing Mowgli I’m 2019. Haha

Again "one" of the points and you're the one clearly dragging it at this point.

Problem solved - Netflix aquired the movie from WB...

Definitely for the best. Though I kinda feel bad for Serkis and everone else who has been working hard on it.

Pretty big deal, imo. I wonder if Netflix will be able to give this a theatrical run at all? (maybe just 3D?)

Reports suggest there will be a theatrical 3D release. I’ve never seen a Netflix logo on the big screen.

It will be interesting to see Netflix gives the 3-D version anything resembling a major theatrical release. They are so invested in legitimizing their online platform in the film world (they were obviously far, far ahead in regard to TV); there was no move to give an A-list prestige picture such as Beasts of No Nation or a big-budget genre film such as Bright anything more than Oscar-qualifying, hyper-limited theatrical runs.

This is their biggest from-a-major-studio acquisition coup yet, topping The Cloverfield Paradox...are they going to share it with their enemy, theatres? Does saying, "Here's your chance to see it on the big screen!" suggest by extension that watching the film on Netflix at home is a lesser experience?

Wait so we can’t see it in the theaters bummer

This is awesome, and actually DOES solve the problem in so many ways. Nobody will know how much of a flop it really will be, and it gets to people's homes so they don't have to go out and market it, and it dodges the eye-rolling from people that can't see beyond the Disney one.

David sums it up well. I'd say (and I hope) they keep it on Netflix and don't even bother with a theatrical release. It just wouldn't make sense unless they can do special handpicked 3D screenings like one in LA, one in NY, etc. like a lot of indie releases to in their first weekend.