# Talk:The Jungle Book (1967 film)

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
Allan, Robin (2000). "From Magic Kingdom to Mowgli". Walt Disney and Europe: European Influences on the Animated Feature Films of Walt Disney. Indiana University Press. pp. 242–250. ISBN 978-0-253-21353-2.
Wells, Paul (2008). The Animated Bestiary: Animals, Cartoons, and Culture. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-4414-4.
Whitley, David (2008). "The Jungle Book: Nature and the Politics of Identity". The Idea of Nature in Disney Animation. Ashgate Studies in Childhood, 1700 to the Present. Ashgate. pp. 99–116. ISBN 978-0-7546-6085-9.
Pinsky, Mark I. (2004). "The Jungle Book (1967): Nature and Nurture". The Gospel According to Disney: Faith, Trust, and Pixie Dust. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 88–93. ISBN 978-0-664-22591-9.

My nephew has a VHS of the Jungle Book from the late 90's that has nonus features after the film.  These bonus features mention the film was much darker in the early development stages, and that the original score was much more macabre and somber.  It doesn't go in depth about it, but it does show an early story board of the elephants marching, with a low quality demo playing mentioning the elephants are marching off to die.

{{editsemiprotected}}
This is Dusseldorke saying that I would like to add to this page.  Under the topic "Legacy," in the first note on the influence on "Robin Hood" I would like you to add that the dance between Baloo and King Louie in the song "I Wanna Be Like You" is the exact same dance between Little John and Lady Cluck in the "Robin Hood" song "The Phony King of England."  The following link shows the comparison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqp0fJnD4Jk Thank you for your time.
Dusseldorke (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 01:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done Sourced to The Sun (not exactly a rock solid source in general, but should be fine for this.) Hqb (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}
The Jungle Book (1967) Released on TV on July, 2011
121.45.172.182 (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Tentontunic (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Not done, no source provided. Tentontunic (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Jungle Book (1967) Broadcast on July, 2011 on Disney Channel, i Update on IMDB.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.172.182 (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 

IMDB is not a reliable source for this information. --ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 01:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Jungle Book (1967) Broadcast on July, 2011 on Disney Channel

Please replace
In the original book The vultures are grim and evil characters who feast on the dead. Disney lightened it up by having The vultures bearing a physical and vocal resemblance to The Beatles. The members of the band would of almost sung the songs for the movie as well as voicing the vultures
with
In the original book, the vultures are grim and evil characters who feast on the dead. Disney lightened it up by having the vultures bearing a physical and vocal resemblance to The Beatles. The members of the band would have almost sung the songs for the movie as well as voicing the vultures
144.136.93.164 (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm using this template right, but just thought I'd point out that the 'Development and writing' section has a number of typos. Littlemisskinski (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Ooops, I can see I did use it wrongly. I'll try and do it right now.
Please change 'However, the writer decided ake the story more straightforward' to 'However, the writer decided to make the story more straightfoward, and 'The Jungle Book also marks the animated film from the company to have Walt's personal touches, before his death on December 15, 1966' to 'The Jungle Book also marks the last animated film from the company to have Walt's personal touches, before his death on December 15, 1966'. Those are the two most striking examples. Littlemisskinski (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In the interwikis, please add simple:The Jungle Book (1967 movie) before sh.
98.90.4.75 (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Seems uncontroversial enough. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In "Cast" change Shanti's description to "Darleen Carr as The Human Girl, the girl who lures Mowgil into the Man Village. She is not named in this film, but named Shanti in the sequel." Under "External links", take off the vi interwiki because it's already at the wikidata. The bot forgot to remove it because it has been renamed, and the new name is at wikidata.
98.90.4.2 (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done I didn't incorporate your exact wording, but I believe the spirit of your request is there. Plus the vi interwiki removal is a minor edit. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The Jungle Book, written by Rudyard Kipling, was made into a film....etc.  
This was Kipling's work and it is necessary to keep his name alive.  Thanks for considering this change.  Our younger generation need to be familiar with this Nobel Prize winner.  This request is for his name to be in the beginning of your article.  Many thanks.  From member of the Kipling Society, London.
92.29.39.192 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: This article is about the 1967 film and it already does mention that it is an adaptation of Kipling's work in the first paragraph. I believe that the spirit of your request is already accomplished by fact that the article The Jungle Book (note no parenthetical disambiguation) is about Kipling's book. What this means is that anyone coming onto Wikipedia searching for "The Jungle Book" would see the article on Kipling's book first and then have to navigate a couple of steps before arriving at this article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The article use the reference "Toon of a kind, The Sun, April 21, 2009." with a link on an article in the Sun writtenby TIM SPANTON. But this Sun's article use a video named Ressemblance dans les films Disney, a title in French. This video is this one published on youtube on 24 august 2008... 

First the reference is uncorrect has the attribution to Spanton of sometjing he just republished. So could I remove it ?
Second the replacement, i don't know if we could use this video ?
--GdGourou  - °o°  - Talk to me 14:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeing the Jungle Book 2 did not come out until 2003 why is the girl named Shanti in the original movie's article when she was originally is given no name? As for reference (17) "Child actress Darlene Carr was going around singing in the studio when composers Sherman Brothers asked her to record a demo of Shanti's song "My Own Home". Carr's performance impressed Disney enough for him to cast her as Shanti." That review came out in 1998, 5 years before the release of the 2nd movie. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:EUPHEMISM states: "The word died is neutral and accurate; avoid euphemisms such as passed away." The Critical reception section on this article reads: "The Jungle Book received an outpouring of positive reviews upon release, undoubtedly influenced by a nostalgic reaction to the passing of Disney". The wording needs be changed to read "the death of Disney" in accordance with MOS standards, as passing does sound silly. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Sam Sailor Sing 19:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Flunkey is a langur or macaque, not a baboon. There are no baboons native to India. The only baboons in Asia are in Saudi Arabia, and Yemen: the hamadryas baboons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolboy2001 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC) 

"Inspired by the Rudyard Kipling's book of the same name" needs to lose the "the". It should simply be "Inspired by Rudyard Kipling's book of the same name". (Pretty loosely inspired, if you ask me: it's lightweight slapstick, with none of the bite and seriousness of the book. Oh well.) 86.184.161.129 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Another error: "much acclaim to its soundtrack" should be "much acclaim for its soundtrack". 86.184.161.129 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, the book went into public domain in 1950 (copyrights lasted 56 years at the time).  If Disney exploited that, it puts an interesting spin on the Copyright Term Extension Act. - Richfife (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not certain about the American copyright law applying to a British publication such as the The Jungle Book (1894). From an article on British copyright law of the time, the relevant law at the time of publication was the Copyright Act 1842. According to which "the copyright of every book published in the lifetime of its author would endure for the remainder of the author's life and for a further seven years after their death. If this period was less than forty-two years from the first publication, then the copyright would persist for a full forty-two years regardless of the date of their death." Rudyard Kipling died in 1936, so the copyright protection would be over by 1943. 
The law was repealed and replaced by the Copyright Act 1911. According to it, "Extension of the term of copyright to life and fifty years". Under this law, any work by Kipling would still be under copyright protection until 1986, 50 years following his death. 
This law was repealed and replaced again by  the Copyright Act 1956, which states: "copyright subsists at the passing of this Act thirty years, from the death of the author of a published work". As far as the United Kingdom was concerned, copyright protection for most works by Kipling would therefore end by 1966, 30 years following his death. 
The most recent British copyright law is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, under which "copyright in most works lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator if known, otherwise 70 years after the work was created or published (50 years for computer-generated works)." If applied retroactively, I am not certain if this has been applied, most works by Kipling should stay under copyright protection until 2006, 70 years followings his death. 
As far as I know, Disney has not paid any royalties to the heirs of Kipling. Kipling's last surviving daughter Elsie Bambridge died childless in 1976 and passed her rights to the National Trust, which donated them to University of Sussex. Some late works by Kipling have had their copyright extended in some legal jurisdictions, for a few decades more. But the Jungle Book is not among them. 
There is plenty of criticism about the Copyright Term Extension Act online and several pages pointing that most of Disney's animated films have actually taken advantage of the availability of earlier works in the public domain. Not certain if pointing that this is one of them introduces anything worthwhile to the article. We already have a Criticism of The Walt Disney Company article. Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You have a point.  Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Fantasy films involve myths or magics. The film has neither of them. Then how is it a fantasy film?PhysicsScientist (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The film is based loosely on The Jungle Book (1894), which mostly includes beast fables. The character Mowgli is a feral child, a recurring theme in mythology. Dimadick (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sterling Holloway who voiced Kaa the Indian python is more commonly known as the voice of Winnie the Pooh. (124.121.152.31 (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC))

While Holloway did indeed voice Winnie the Pooh, we should leave it to the readers to determine how he is best known. They can read his article and draw their own conclusions.  --McDoobAU93 12:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This film is an adventure dramedy film. Why not add it?
--97.113.114.127 (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal

There is no clear indication about when this film is set.  The only two humans are both Indians.  Hathi talks a bit like a parody of a British Army colonel, but that doesn't mean much, he says something about having served in the Maharajah's army. PatGallacher (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Based on who the story author is, it is a good bet. But still it isn't really relevant to anything in the story and isn't directly stated in the source material. Doesn't need to be in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

could the lanuage be adjusted because After the box-office underperformance of The Sword in the Stone is not correct, walt disney started to get more involved than he had been recently because of the critical reception of sword in the stone, sword in the stone was a sucuess and made roughly 22 million dollars on a 3 million dollar budget. 89.240.215.90 (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

22 million dollars represents the film's "lifetime domestic gross" after being re-released twice. During its initial release, the film only earned "an estimated $4.75 million" in the domestic box office. By comparison, One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961) had earned $14 million in its initial domestic release and "It was the first animated feature to earn more than $10 million on its initial release". Sleeping Beauty had earned "approximately $5.3 million" in its initial domestic release. Lady and the Tramp (1955) had earned "an estimated $6.5 million" in its initial domestic release. Peter Pan (1953) "grossed $6 million" in its initial domestic release. The underperforming Alice in Wonderland (1951) had "grossed $2.4 million" in its initial release. So Sword had the second weakest box office performance for Disney animated feature films released between 1951 and 1963. Dimadick (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)