Talk:The Jungle Book (1994 film)

Fair use rationale for Image:Junglebook1994.JPG
Image:Junglebook1994.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section removed
I removed the trivia section and have merged the info in to the article. Thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The trivia about Louie Prima was irrelevant, as none of the animals had voices.
 * 2) Any references made in the film to other Disney films should not be included, as a list (within ANY Disney film) would be exhaustive.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. As it appears from this discussion that the more reliable secondary sources discussed here tend to use the current title more than the proposed title, no consensus results in no change for now. Mkativerata (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Rudyard Kipling& → The Jungle Book (1994 film) — This article was moved from The Jungle Book (1994 film) to Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book in 2008 without discussion or a descriptive edit summary. I propose it be moved back. "Rudyard Kipling's" (the name of the author the story is based on) is listed in very small text on the poster above what I consider the proper title, The Jungle Book, which is typeset more like a film title. For comparison, The Jungle Book (1967 film) has the text "Walt Disney" directly above the title on the poster, but we don't consider that part of the title. IMDb lists this as just The Jungle Book (1994), while certain other sources use the longer text as the title. Mepolypse (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd normally agree with you on the uselessness of the "Rudyard Kipling's" attribution. However, we must follow the sources, and the reviews linked in the article all use the full "Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book" title.  Powers T 19:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't it's quite as unequivocal as you make it out to be. I skimmed the references and external links in the article to see which title they use:
 * (both): nytimes.com (long used only once, while also noting that it's one of several "Jungle Book" titles)
 * (both): latimes.com (two articles use only short title, while one uses the long)
 * (short): boxofficemojo.com
 * (neither): variety.com (broken link)
 * (long): washingtonpost.com
 * (long): rogerebert.com (sorry, missed this the first time)
 * (short): imdb.com
 * (long): rottentomatoes.com
 * Of interest is also that two of these reviews (this and this) note that the "Rudyard Kipling's" attribution is "cynical" (Ebert) and "in vain" (latimes.com). --Mepolypse (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * IMDb isn't a reliable source, and it's not surprising that the nytimes article would abbreviate such a long title after the first use. That only leaves boxofficemojo.com and one latimes.com article using the shortened form.  Powers T 01:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I missed the rogerebert.com entry in the listing above, added now.
 * How about Allmovie, is that considered a reliable source? (To answer my own question, I skimmed some of the comments here and came to the conclusion that it is.) Allmovie has it as just The Jungle Book (see here). --Mepolypse (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the DVD page; the main movie page has the full title.   Don't get me wrong -- I think it's a horrible title, but we have to follow the sources.  Powers T 13:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange, if you go to Allmovie and search for "jungle book" as I did you end up at the "DVD" tab, where The Jungle Book (1994) is one of the entries, but if you search for "the jungle book" you end up at the "Work" tab, where as you note Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book (1994) is one of the entries.
 * Agreed about going by what the sources say, in general. For certain topics, such as titles of works where the title is physically written on the work (films, books, albums), another reasonable source is IMO what is physically written on the work. Shouldn't that be a valid source, even the primary source for such works?
 * As for other sources, at what point can it be decided that the sources are sufficiently ambiguous? Do we have to go with what the majority of sources say, or is there some leeway where we can make an informed decision ourselves if the sources are ambiguous enough? --Mepolypse (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are philosophical questions beyond my pay grade. =)  Powers T 17:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 14 March 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Number   5  7  16:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book → The Jungle Book (1994 film) – Five years ago, RM was attempted to move back to the proposed original title. However, that led to no consensus due to sources. Back to the present, in the light of The Jungle Book (2016 film), an upcoming film, I believe that the current title is confusing. It may refer to either the original novel, the 1994 film, or the upcoming film. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As much as I hate parenthesis, Support ( add Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book (1994 film)) as per nom. The current title provided no disambiguation to a reader unfamiliar with the topic.  GregKaye 12:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support because I thought this title was about the book - not the film. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – This one's tough. I think it would be clearer at the new title. OTOH, I'm having a hard time ignoring the poster art (and some of the references) that clearly refer to the film as "Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book". Is there a relevant guideline in the "film" space of Wikipedia on this?... --IJBall (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How about Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book (1994 film) then, IJBall, GregKaye, and Secondarywaltz? --George Ho (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to The Jungle Book (1994 film) per WP:PRECISE. The current title is too ambiguious and should redirect to The Jungle Book (disambiguation). Fortdj33 (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move per WP:PRECISE.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move per WP:PRECISE as all above In ictu oculi (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to The Jungle Book (1994 film). Lapadite (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the current title would logically mean the book by Kipling. Therefore the current title should point to the book or the disambiguation page -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Per WP:PRECISION and to distinguish from the 2016 film. Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book, seemed to refer to the book which is another reason to move. Mbcap (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Jungle Book (1994 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081224033432/http://www.variety.com:80/profiles/Film/main/28057/Rudyard%20Kipling%27s%20The%20Jungle%20Book.html?dataSet=1 to http://www.variety.com/profiles/Film/main/28057/Rudyard%20Kipling%27s%20The%20Jungle%20Book.html?dataSet=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Baloo orphaned?
I got the feeling that Baloo was orphaned in this film since Mowgli bumps into him while both were children, possibly as a reference to the TaleSpin character Kit Cloudkicker (and Talespin aired three to four years earlier).184.186.4.209 (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)