MovieChat Forums > The Jungle Book (2016) Discussion > King Louie not possible

King Louie not possible

posted 8 years ago by Ashleyavolpe
17 replies | jump to latest

I loved this movie and I am a HUGE Disney fan. That being said, it really bothers me that they decided King Louie should be a gigantopithecus. They did not exist at the same time as modern humans (Homo Sapiens) in India. They were extinct 100,000 years ago, while Homo sapiens didn't come to India until a good 20-30 thousand years later. Furthermore, if there is a "man village", it means that humans were already planting food and controlling fire. This didn't happen until about 10,000 years ago. The gigantopithecus would have been extinct for 90,000 years already.

[–] mlmonne 8 years ago

This is the only thing you think "not possible" in this movie?

How are you so sure they got extinct? Where you there at the time? Did the last one send you a message: "Hey, it's me, I'm the last one and I'm leaving now"?

There are many people who still believe in the existance of a Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Yeti etc. etc. so why not a giant ape, hidden deep in the jungle?

Far fetched at best, but remember this is a movie, it's fiction.

That is my opinion, it is mine and belongs to me, and I own it and what it is, too.

[–] Intotheknight 8 years ago

Why do killjoys like you even watch movies? Stick with factual documentaries.

[–] ravi02 8 years ago

It's a movie about a fantastical jungle with anthropomorphic animals. Sometimes you need to forget scientific accuracy and just accept it as being part of the film's fictional world.

[–] Alondro 8 years ago

I simply didn't see the point of adding in that species regardless of the rationale.

It would have made much better story-telling sense for Louie to be a captive orangutan held by a rajah, who then escapes and becomes king of the monkey tribe by virtue of his size and knowledge of man's behaviors.

The only thing he might never have seen is the actual kindling of fire. He's seen how it can be passed on, how to make more of it, but never has he had a good look at how to START a fire, the key he believes grants man so much power over all other animals.

And thus, King Louie would fit much better into the story as a whole, and could feel even natural to Kipling's version had Kipling had the idea himself.

[–] ravi02 8 years ago

He fits just fine the way it is. Gigantopithecus was native to India after all.

Adding a whole backstory about him escaping from a Rajah would just be boring exposition. It's already made clear in the film that the other monkeys look to him as a leader due to his size and charisma.

[–] Alondro 8 years ago

And the song added... what instead?

They'd already used Kaa for NOTHING other than boring exposition... and leaving one to wonder how she knew anything since she wasn't even there... so why not give Louie a backstory? It'd only take a minute to explain it all.

[–] ravi02 8 years ago

The song was like, 30 seconds of screentime and it establishes why Louie is interested in Mowgli. We don't need a backstory for Louie just like there's no real backstories for ANY of the animal characters. All we need is an explanation for their motivations and Louie's what that he was interested in keeping Mowgli and learning the secret of fire.

It was made clear that Kaa overhears everything in the jungle, so its not far-fetched that she would have knowledge of everyone.

She's in the film for a couple minutes and that small amount of time qualifies as "boring exposition"? You're just clearly looking for things to complain about.

[–] Alondro 8 years ago

The song clashes in tone with the rest of the scene. And there are no other songs in the movie. It did not belong.

How do you know (from the movie, not common knowledge of the pre-existing character) that Kaa overhears everything? There is absolutely nothing to say so or suggest such a thing in the film.

And her presentation of the flashback was about as dully presented as possible. It was emotionless.

[–] ravi02 8 years ago

Louie's got a goofy side to him as well, so the song isn't that distracting. It's like, 30 seconds of screentime, dude.

No other songs? Did you forget Mowgli and Baloo singing Bare Necessities on the river?

We are introduced to Kaa by seeing her hiding in the trees where she waits for her prey. Think of it like a real-life python slithering from place to place and its not hard to imagine Kaa being knowledgeable of the various inhabitants.

Also, she was trying to hypnotize Mowgli. Watch a real-life hypnotization being done and you'll hear the reader reciting dialogue as flatly as possible. Same with Kaa's line reading.

[–] Alondro 8 years ago

Yeah... there's a thing called 'tone' in a scene. The song was out of place. Mowgli and Baloo's little 'song' fit the tone, and wasn't a full-on musical number.

And with Kaa, you're once again trying to explain things for the movie which the movie failed to explain. Excuses do not solve the issues. Real-life hypnotism doesn't involve magical swirling eye colors and snakes, so that's irrelevant.

[–] ravi02 8 years ago

Louie sings a portion of the song during the actual film, not the full song.

No, I am not making excuses for Kaa's appearance either. It's something that's clearly implied by Kaa's presence in the trees. How hard is it to imagine a snake slithering in the trees and overhearing/seeing everything from a distance?

Did you forget this is a movie about talking anthropomorphic animals? In real-life hypnotists recite lines in a flat manner, just like Scarlet Johansson did as Kaa.

[–] Alondro 8 years ago

Kaa slithering in trees implies exactly NOTHING with regard to an event that took place YEARS EARLIER, nor to anything else for that matter!

The monkeys swing in the trees in the film. Are we to follow your argument and assume that this too was some sort of implausibly vague symbolism for omnipresence?

Are we to assume that every bird in the jungle also happened to be present, simply because they too roost in trees?

Your argument is patently absurd on its face!

[–] ravi02 8 years ago

You just don't give up do you?

At the end of the day, it's a fantasy film and you either suspend your disbelief and enjoy the fictional world it presents, or you don't. I'm not sure what else you hope to accomplish by endlessly posting on a film you didn't like.

[–] Alondro 8 years ago

I did 'like' it the same way I 'liked' the 1967 version.

But it has clear and obvious flaws which a little more thought on the story would have erased. It missed being what it could have been by not paying attention to the details of internal continuity and tonal consistency within scenes.

[–] rooster-rousseau 8 years ago

People like you suck...must be a chore to watch a movie with you.
It's a *beep* movie. ...SUSPEND YOUR DISBELIEF!!!

[–] ZTrainExpress 8 years ago

Well if there were a King Louis sized animal they would be hidden away far in the jungle in an abandoned temple and be worshiped by smaller monkeys who recognize size above all things.

So if there were one it would be like this and hidden from man, so it does work in that respect. Scientists are always finding organisms they thought were extinct. Maybe we're just looking in the wrong place.

[–] RussellNash (2087) 7 years ago

He's played by Christopher Walken though. He's almost 100.000 years old.