Andy Serkis to Direct 'Mowgli' For WB

[Jonwo]

The bts video probably got me more pumped than the actual trailer.

The BTS video has some really great VFX shots which weren't in the trailer.

The animal motion capture does seem to be an evolution of what Serkis did with Caesar and Gollum rather than realistic CG animals.

 

[Melpardus]

See, that method works for non-human primates because we have similar enough facial structures that morphing human facial expressions onto a chimp like Caesar is fairly easy to do without making the the latter look uncanny. It most definitely does not work with non-simians; it just looks goofy (like the canines), freaky (the big cats), or somewhere firmly in-between (i.e. Kaa).

 

[2kt09]

See, that method works for non-human primates because we have similar enough facial structures that morphing human facial expressions onto a chimp like Caesar is fairly easy to do without making the the latter look uncanny. It most definitely does not work with non-simians; it just looks goofy (like the canines), freaky (the big cats), or somewhere firmly in-between (i.e. Kaa).

The reasoning was for emotive and expressive characters because that is my only gripe watching Favreau's take. All that work when they could just as well used real animals and emote their mouths in post.

 

[Schlosser85]

So this looks like it's set after the ending of the conventional story, with Mowgli returning to the jungle after going to the human village, right? Hence lines like Shere Khan saying how he's grown.

 

[chaseter]

Serkis should have dumped this after Disney announced live action JB.

 

[scarlet-witch]

I expected better CG than what the trailer shows. This really does look like DC jungle book, and I'm a big fan of Serkis.

And that poster looks like a straight to dvd horror poster. Damn

 

[HammerDown]

Not a great first look. The CGI isn't that good either.
It looks like they made the animal faces much more human like and it looked strange...
The green screen was pretty evident in places and the kid really looked "out of place" with the other cgi elements. It didn't mesh well. On the other hand the cast is very good and the voicing seemed interesting.

In a natural comparison with the Jungle Book it doesn't play as well. I'll wait for more footage in order to delve deeper into the overall feel of the movie.

 

[HammerDown]

Agree 100%. The kid was solid, this poster is just bad...

On the bright side, I thought the kid's acting is good. On the downside, this poster is... unfortunate.

 

[DACrowe]

You know this movie could be good. It could work. But the market is not going to care.

 

[HammerDown]

Again i have to agree with what has been said before. This BTS footage is much more appealing than the trailer. It's so much better, impactful and really interesting.

BTS video:

[YT]KjJ0j0Z3U2w[/YT]

 

[terry78]

It'll be hilariously ironic if the one with songs and comic relief comes off as sturdier than this one.

 

[Lencho01]

BTS video:

[YT]KjJ0j0Z3U2w[/YT]

Hmm... the animals sorta looks like their actors while the Disney one had them just look like what you'd expect real animals would look like.

 

[2kt09]

[YT]rGa9j4vucFc[/YT]

 

[Guts]

Hmm... the animals sorta looks like their actors while the Disney one had them just look like what you'd expect real animals would look like.

It's almost going to turn the movie into nightmare fuel when the animals have partial human faces.

 

[Lencho01]

Mowgli's Andy Serkis Explains Why the Time Is Right for a New Take on The Jungle Book

What benefits do you gain from having the animal characters done with motion-capture performances instead of making them purely CG animation creations?

Serkis: Well, for me, the most important thing in this story working was having emotionally believable and engaging characters that we could act with. All the animals had to be proper actors, in terms of—not that that they had to be played by proper actors—they had to be actors. They have to be believable characters. So, the thought of creating a photorealistic tiger and then plunking a voice-overed voice on top of that, for me, was never going to fly. Talking animals are very hard to pull off. You can make it look good, but it has to feel—they have to feel and be alive and have soul. So, performance capture was the routine, and obviously, I’m not a stranger to it, and it’s something I’ve been working with for many years. So, I thought this was the way to work. And also, coupled with that, it’s not just the technology, it’s the actual design of the animals.

We very carefully, in a long development period, designed the animals to fit the actor’s faces. So, the way we approached it was, if you take it on the left side, you’ve got an image of Christian Bale’s face, and then on the right hand side, you’ve got an image of a panther. We morphed Christian’s face over a series of images, backwards from the panther and towards Christian until we reached a sweet spot where somewhere along that spectrum you could actually see both. So, it was in the design of the animals. That was where the secret lies. And then, having the actors just play with Rohan Chand—this extraordinary young actor who plays Mowgli—to actually have them in the same space connecting with each other and emotionally finding the scenes together. So that really was something. that was the big difference. And I think when you see it, you won’t question whether these things feel alive.

 

[kvz5]

It's almost going to turn the movie into nightmare fuel when the animals have partial human faces.

I think it's the eyes that's throwing people off. That's where the animals looked most human (at least to me).

 

[Marvolo]

Its definitely the eyes and the bone structures around the eyes that looks way too human. On paper it might have seemed like a good idea, but in reality it's just distracting and weird.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

This looks goofy.

 

[Melpardus]

The reasoning was for emotive and expressive characters because that is my only gripe watching Favreau's take. All that work when they could just as well used real animals and emote their mouths in post.

The problem with using live animals as dynamic characters for scripted scenes with actual choreography and such is that they don't know they're in a film. You can guide them to perform various tasks, but they never look as engaged as you'd want them to. Check out pretty much any actual live-action talking animal flick; their heads and eyes are always going somewhere else when they're supposed to be having an engaged conversation with someone right in front of them, and their body language and movements rarely ever actually convey the emotion or intent that their character is supposed to have. Any emotion just feels grafted on and distractingly fake. CG animal characters can be scripted to show all the species-specific behavioral ticks associated with various moods, filtering out all the random stuff that makes real animal "actors" seem out of character and distracted. Like, look at at how Shere Khan moves in my favorite scene from Disney's 2016 version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4evCG3XBCo You can tell from his body language (posture and strut, the way his tail and ears flick at certain points to accentuate his mood, etc.) that he moves with ill intent, so you don't need the face alone to be particularly expressive. You're not going to convey that same mood and gravitas with an actual tiger, and you don't want to be around a real tiger when it does get that engaged with whatever it's approaching.

I understand the reasoning and respect Serkis' approach to motion capture work and character expressiveness, and this seems to be a passion project of his so I'm actually pretty sold on this outside of the creature design. (I was actually more looking forward to this take on the story than Disney's recent version.) It's just that otherwise photorealistic non-primate animals don't really mesh well with human-esque faces for me aesthetically, especially given the self-proclaimed "dark" tone of the film. This looks like what would happen if you made photorealistic models of The Lion King characters or tried to pull an Animorphs.

Not a great first look. The CGI isn't that good either.

In a natural comparison with the Jungle Book it doesn't play as well. I'll wait for more footage in order to delve deeper into the overall feel of the movie.

I think the CG creatures here actually look a lot better in terms of being more "present" than the Disney version's. The Disney version has well-detailed, anatomically correct models that look nice when they're by themselves -- even though you can still tell it's CGI, but of course you can; computer graphics of this sort are never going to look like real life -- but their non-presence becomes glaring obvious once Mowgli enters the shot. Not necessarily distracting to me since I'm used to looking at CGI and can suspend disbelief if it's good enough, but it is distractingly noticeable when he has to make physical contact with them.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Battle Angel Alita: We are going to creep all your kids out.

Mowgli: Hold my beer.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It'll be hilariously ironic if the one with songs and comic relief comes off as sturdier than this one.

The Jungle Book, for all those things, has a real emotional core and maturity. This trailer looks a lot cheaper and less well made in comparison. Especially with how much stage work there clearly is.

 

[jmc]

The disadvantage of being second is no more evident than what's in this trailer.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

This looks goofy.

Same goes for anything TMNT related, or that Rampage movie.
I'm willing to embrace silly, so long as it's good, or at least enjoyable.

 

[terry78]

I confess seeing that tiger coming at you in a PG-13 rated fury may scare anyone.

 

[2kt09]

The problem with using live animals as dynamic characters for scripted scenes with actual choreography and such is that they don't know they're in a film. You can guide them to perform various tasks, but they never look as engaged as you'd want them to. Check out pretty much any actual live-action talking animal flick; their heads and eyes are always going somewhere else when they're supposed to be having an engaged conversation with someone right in front of them, and their body language and movements rarely ever actually convey the emotion or intent that their character is supposed to have. Any emotion just feels grafted on and distractingly fake. CG animal characters can be scripted to show all the species-specific behavioral ticks associated with various moods, filtering out all the random stuff that makes real animal "actors" seem out of character and distracted. Like, look at at how Shere Khan moves in my favorite scene from Disney's 2016 version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4evCG3XBCo You can tell from his body language (posture and strut, the way his tail and ears flick at certain points to accentuate his mood, etc.) that he moves with ill intent, so you don't need the face alone to be particularly expressive. You're not going to convey that same mood and gravitas with an actual tiger, and you don't want to be around a real tiger when it does get that engaged with whatever it's approaching.

I understand the reasoning and respect Serkis' approach to motion capture work and character expressiveness, and this seems to be a passion project of his so I'm actually pretty sold on this outside of the creature design. (I was actually more looking forward to this take on the story than Disney's recent version.) It's just that otherwise photorealistic non-primate animals don't really mesh well with human-esque faces for me aesthetically, especially given the self-proclaimed "dark" tone of the film. This looks like what would happen if you made photorealistic models of The Lion King characters or tried to pull an Animorphs.



I think the CG creatures here actually look a lot better in terms of being more "present" than the Disney version's. The Disney version has well-detailed, anatomically correct models that look nice when they're by themselves -- even though you can still tell it's CGI, but of course you can; computer graphics of this sort are never going to look like real life -- but their non-presence becomes glaring obvious once Mowgli enters the shot. Not necessarily distracting to me since I'm used to looking at CGI and can suspend disbelief if it's good enough, but it is distractingly noticeable when he has to make physical contact with them.

That's pretty much what I was referring to. In Jungle Book, you still pretty much get that awkwardness as if they were live-action animals. Serkis seems more aware that his characters are animated so I welcome the fact that he can do both subtle movements and more obvious expressions that coincide with the dramatic voice over.