8 Reasons The Jungle Book Remake Is Better Than The Original Animation

1. The Animation Is Probably Not As Good As You Remember

So far I've tried to keep everything about how good the remake is, but there's an unavoidable fact that needs to be addressed when comparing these two films, something that anyone who's rewatched the animation in preparation for the live-action version will have regrettably discovered; The Jungle Book isn't as good as you remember.

Oh, it's not a bad movie. It's just nothing special; a mid-range Disney film bolstered by excellent songs and some solid characterisation that unavoidable employs some cheap animation and narrative tricks. Let's put it this way - even for a kids films made in the sixties, to run for only 78 minutes and not have a narrative beyond "A to B by way of a tiger" is a bit weak, especially as Favreau has shown an impactful story isn't that hard to achieve.

As I said in the intro, this is one of the biggest endorsements of the remake enterprise, allowing ideas that had previously been only half-realised to get properly addressed. But that there are still elements of the 1967 version that work also means something else, something that may be The Jungle Book's biggest success; it improves on the original, but by nature of its different approach doesn't displace it, meaning fans of either version can be satisfied.

The last film Walt Disney worked on, The Jungle Book marked the end of an era for the animation studio, with the following two decades seeing low production rates and even lower quality all the way up to the Disney Renaissance in the early nineties. Here's hoping its remake does the opposite, heralding a new age for the company's live-action arm.

What did you think of The Jungle Book? Is it better than the original animation? Share your thoughts down in the comments.