Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

Mowgli (aka The Jungle Book)

Recommended Posts

Link to our thread on the live-action version of The Jungle Book now being developed at Disney.

- - -

Steve Kloves To Write-Direct ‘The Jungle Book’ For Warner Bros
EXCLUSIVE: Steve Kloves is making a deal to write, direct and produce The Jungle Book at Warner Bros. The film is a live action of the Rudyard Kipling classic about an orphaned boy raised by wolves and other animals, which try to protect him from the ferocious tiger Shere-Khan. The deal keeps Kloves in the Warner Bros fold, where he has been the backbone of the Harry Potter series, and most recently scripted Akira.
Mike Fleming, Deadline.com, April 27

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is back in the industry news and... well... whoa.

 

Warner Bros is in early talks with Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu to helm The Jungle Book, a new version of the Rudyard Kipling novel about an orphaned boy raised in the wilderness by animals. This is one of the studio’s priority projects, with a script by Steve Kloves, who scripted the Harry Potter series for Warner Bros.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there some kind of Inarritu fanboy thing I'm not getting here, or is this simply a case of Opie Allergy? What is it about Inarritu's previous films that make people think him uniquely (or even "especially") qualified to helm a live-action blockbuster of Rudyard Kipling childrens-ish short stories ... cuz I'm not seeing it (tho I haven't seen BIUTIFUL). Are they all gonna uncannily intersect at the end or something?

 

Besides, any rational good expectations for this project would have to assume that the script won't be post-colonially-problematized-to-death ... and I doubt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, any rational good expectations for this project would have to assume that the script won't be post-colonially-problematized-to-death ... and I doubt that.

 

As I mentioned in the other thread, it'll certainly be interesting to see how the internet reacts to a new adaptation of Kipling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victor, I'm no Innaritu fanboy. It was just that the thought of him doing The Jungle Book was just so... bizarre. I couldn't wait to see what would happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victor, I'm no Innaritu fanboy. It was just that the thought of him doing The Jungle Book was just so... bizarre. I couldn't wait to see what would happen.

This. 

 

What would Inarritu bring to Kipling? I have no freaking idea. What will Howard bring? I know exactly what. I'm much more interested in finding out the answer to the first question than watching the second unfold with crushing inevitability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 What will Howard bring? I know exactly what. 

You may be right, but after Rush, I'm open to being surprised by Howard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian wrote:
: You may be right, but after Rush, I'm open to being surprised by Howard.

 

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

 

I'm also getting flashbacks to the disappointment that some Joss Whedon fans expressed when he parted ways with the Wonder Woman movie. I didn't get much sense that the Whedon fans had any interest in the source material, they were just into it for Whedon. Likewise here, I wonder how many of the Inarritu fans have any real interest in Kipling.

 

To put this another way, in a recent blog post, I addressed the appropriateness of Ridley Scott making a Moses movie by noting that Scott has always been skeptical of quests for new worlds and promised lands, but I also noted that the Moses story (once you get past the actual leaving of Egypt) includes Moses' frequent frustration with the Israelites and the fact that Moses ultimately died without ever setting foot inside the promised land -- so perhaps there is room for Moses to be one of Scott's disappointed pilgrims. I'd like to think my comment reflected an interest in both the films of Ridley Scott *and* in the story of Moses.

 

But I'm not getting the sense that anyone here had any interest in seeing Innaritu's take on Kipling beyond the fact that the choice of director was, as SDG put it, "bizarre". (Which, obviously, it was. But I didn't have enough invested in Innaritu *or* Kipling to feel anything about their pairing beyond a puzzled curiosity.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What will Howard bring? I know exactly what.

You may be right, but after Rush, I'm open to being surprised by Howard.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

I never caught Rush, but I'm not at all surprised that Howard might have done a credible job with a biographical drama about driven men devoting their lives to their passion. I've seen Cinderella Man, A Beautiful Mind and Apollo 13.

I have no reason for confidence in Howard's ability to do anything like exotic fantasy, folk tale or family entertainment. I've seen The Grinch and Willow.

 

But I'm not getting the sense that anyone here had any interest in seeing Innaritu's take on Kipling beyond the fact that the choice of director was, as SDG put it, "bizarre". (Which, obviously, it was. But I didn't have enough invested in Innaritu *or* Kipling to feel anything about their pairing beyond a puzzled curiosity.)

That was Overstreet, not me.

And I wouldn't say I was invested in the pairing. I would say before I was intrigued, and now I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SDG wrote:
: I have no reason for confidence in Howard's ability to do anything like exotic fantasy, folk tale or family entertainment. I've seen The Grinch and Willow.

 

Ah, that's a fair distinction. Although, if I were to play Howard's advocate, I might want to pin the blame for Willow on George Lucas, and, uh, yikes. There's no explaining away The Grinch, even after one takes into account the fact that turning a Dr Seuss story into a live-action movie (with grotesque cartoonish prosthetics and everything) was an uphill struggle to begin with.

 

: That was Overstreet, not me.

 

Whoops. As Daffy Duck would say, "Pronoun trouble." Except this wasn't a pronoun thing, just an attribution thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×