However this is not enough.
Finally, in the spring of 2016, following "Zootopia", Disney once again exceeded the audience's expectations and imagination with amazing efficiency and quality, and announced in advance that 2016 would become Disney's Years -
this time the achievement is "Fantasy Forest".
Created in 1967, "The Forest Prince" was adapted from Nobel Prize winner Joseph Rudyard Kipling's "The Jungle Book" and was the last animation produced by Walt Disney during his lifetime. In this typical sub-feed animation, Disney presents a funny but not stupid, simple but not thin story - of course, in today's eyes, I am afraid that even ordinary TV animation can tell it I dislike it - the little human boy Mowgli was raised by wolves in the forest since he was a child. Because of the return of the evil tiger, he and his animal friends had an adventure full of innocence and love in the forest. However, after the production has become a live-action film, a highlight seems to be just talking animals, which are adapted from cartoons 50 years ago, can they please the taste of the current audience?
The answer is yes.
After practicing for several years in a row ("Alien Battlefield" in 2012, "Lone Ranger" in 2013, "Tomorrowland" in 2015), Disney finally learned many important lessons and bore the brunt of it. The point is: the
right people do the right things.
Special effects blockbusters are popular now, but what are special effects blockbusters? Does a director who faces CG every day and also shoots good CG must be a good director of special effects blockbusters? That's the biggest lesson of Battlegrounds and Tomorrowland. Even if you are a veteran of Pixar, you are still the owner of the pit.
And James Cameron was James Cameron before he made "Avatar" in 2009.
A director who understands live-action movies, at least live-action entertainment movies, is more suitable for a special effects blockbuster position than an orphan animation master.
So we saw the name of Jon Favreau, the number one hero of the "Iron Man" series, appearing in the director position of "Fantasy Forest".
As the man who created the smoothest, most flirtatious and most successful film series in the entire Marvel system, Jon Favreau has successfully brought this super-high-energy entertainment to "The Forest." The editing and cinematography of The Jungle Book is astounding, and the rhythm is rarely smooth and silky, thanks to Sam Raimi's royal cinematographer Bill Pope (who also shot The Matrix). There isn't a single boring plot in the whole movie, the story is slack, perfectly balanced, and flexibly adjusted with humor.
At the same time, "Fantasy Forest" is excellent in terms of actors and dubbing, especially Idris Elba, who has participated in dubbing activities in Disney films twice this year, and the progress can be described as rapid and considerable; There are a few scenes where Neil Sethi is good, but others are lackluster. But considering this is his first electrocution, it's pretty good; the two grandpas Bill Murray and Ben Kingsley have locked in the second most popular CP pair of the year, especially Bill Murray, who is experienced in dubbing, is literally covered in As for Wolf Mama and Wolf Mama and Christopher Walken's King Louis, it's less impressive.
The biggest flaw appeared in Scarlett Johansson's giant python Kao, who played only 5 minutes in total, and had no impact on the plot. Whether it was compared with the 67th version of the animation, it was a considerable waste. Aside from that, The Jungle Book is excellent in every way and offers just about everything you need for a masterful film.
However, good human resources are not a sufficient condition for a successful film, but a necessary condition. It is precisely because of the excellent performance of "Fantasy Forest" in two other aspects that it led to the birth of Disney's second annual masterpiece.
One, maintain a respectful script.
This is quite important. For a special effects blockbuster, if the story cannot keep up with the development speed of CGI, it will soon fall into an extremely embarrassing situation (such as Lionsgate + TVB + LeTV's "masterpiece" "God War: Eyes of Power" ), especially for animated film adaptations. Early animation needs to consider the main crowd of young age, it is impossible to build an overly complicated story, even "The Lion King" has undergone a lot of streamlining. On this basis, if we take it for granted and distort and attach the so-called "spirit of the times" and "hot topics", it will be embarrassing.
The correct and safe approach may be the approach of "Creed" and "Star Wars: The Force Awakens": maintaining a high degree of consistency in form and content with the original. Doing so is both familiar and fresh.
In "Fantasy Forest", we see a story that is basically the same as the 67th version of the animation. The biggest difference is focused on the little protagonist Mowgli - adding one discussed in "Tarzan", but in "Forest" The issue of human nature that did not appear in The Prince:
As a human being living in nature, should Mowgli express and use intellectual advantages?
Bagheera the Panther and Baloo the Brown Bear gave two different answers from different perspectives. The former's point of view is more leftward, and even has some anti-intellectual tendencies, while the latter's answer has more practical value. After all, for Mowgli, Suppressing nature is more difficult and inhuman than other creatures. It seems to be protecting nature, but it is actually violating nature. Corresponding changes have also been made to the plot related to the decisive battle between King Louis the Gorilla and the Tiger Shelly Khan. The use of fire is the earliest and most important difference between humans and animals. Fire represents wisdom. King Louis pursued fire, which is the pursuit of wisdom; and Mowgli defeated Sheri Khan, not relying on animal instinct and animal godfather ( people), but rely on wisdom and courage.
That's one of the ideas that the film incorporates. In fact, starting from "Frozen", Disney gradually regained its confidence in technology and began to try to put educational content into the theme of the film. "Zootopia" is one of the best among them, and "Fantasy Forest" is no less. After getting rid of the embarrassment of "finding a godfather when you encounter difficulties, you can't change your godfather", "Fantasy Forest", like Mowgli, stands on its own feet.
However, the real jaw-dropping aspect of "Fantasy Forest" is the unparalleled CG computer effects.
The entire movie "Fantasy Forest" was shot in a studio in Los Angeles, but the jungle environment created is almost indistinguishable from the actual shooting, especially the animal special effects, which are unparalleled. Believe it is computer generated. If "Zootopia" is the king of animal CG, then "Fantasy Forest" is the crown jewel. Animals with an incredible level of detail take almost all your attention, facial changes even perfectly reflect the character's emotions, and each animal's body movements are perfectly expressed - it's almost as if it has a human soul, completely blurred the boundary between true and false.
The development of CG in recent years is simply astonishing: "Final Fantasy: Deep Soul" has become a thing of the past; in 2008, "Indiana Jones 4" was too fake to put aside the big wave of monkeys, and in 2009 "Avatar" was the year It seems that there are many flaws now, especially in the modeling of people; 2012's "Fantasy Drifting of Pi" also has tigers and orangutans, but compared with "Fantasy Forest", it is simply too weak.
At this point, we can proudly declare that the Uncanny Valley is a thing of the past.
However, another issue that was once discussed but no longer discussed was also really put on the table by "Fantasy Forest": Do
future movies still need real actors?
How should we define a movie like "Fantasy Forest" that has only one actor, and even this one may not be able to keep it? All made by CG, is it animation?
Obviously not. So, can the realistic image style be classified as a live-action movie?
Obviously not either.
Very thoughtful.
But this is technology, and this is the age that keeps moving forward.
Embrace it or not, it's there.
View more about The Jungle Book reviews
