What your opinion about the 2016 revival of the 2007 show?
I only watched the first episode, and TBH, I’m mixed towards the changes. While I like how they made George and Ape more like their 1967 counterparts by giving George muscles and Ape his accent back, Ursula and Magnolia’s changes were completely pointless and unnecessary to me (also, I think the name switch was a goof from the producers). Otherwise however, I haven’t seen enough to quite evaluate it, although it seems fairly similar to the 2007 version based on what I saw (fetish claims from the YMMV page aside).
"Detecting trace amounts of mental activity. Possibly a dead weasel or a cartoon viewer"
And there\'s me surprised to hear of a 2007 reboot, let alone a 2016 reboot. I\'m only familiar with the 1997 film!
Book me today! I also review weddings, funerals and bar mitzvahs.
Removed the flag as I can\'t tell what the issue is.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanLeave a Comment:
The 2007 Reboot is an Unusual Followup to the Originals
When it comes to cartoons, reboots are mixed. You can have fantastic followups like Ducktales 2017 and Animaniacs 2020, or mediocre disappointments like Powerpuff Girls 2016. Then there was George of the Jungle 2007, which was... an enigma. I've heard many bash this series, so I investigated myself, and honestly, I'm a little unsure of what their problem with the show was because there's nothing seriously wrong with it, not even as a reboot of the 1967 show (which I watched episodes of for comparison, though I doubt many cartoon fans who hate the reboot have seen the original given its age). However, I definitely noticed differences, and they make it really hard to compare the reboot to the original.
The thing is the 2007 reboot doesn't feel like a reboot, because it doesn't flaunt itself as a reboot. You need absolutely no knowledge of the 1967 show to enjoy it in the slightest, and you could watch it without even knowing there was an original. A big reason why is its writing. The 1967 show uses Jay Ward's iconic style, with a radio-style narrator and clever humor. The 2007 show was more over-the-top, with visual gags and slapstick (yes, the original had those, but it wasn't as prominent as the verbal humor and puns). This extends to the plotlines. Whereas the 1967 show always had George having to defeat bad guys, the 2007 show had George getting into wacky situations every episode.
The characters of the 2007 reboot highlights the different-ness too. While George, Ape, Shep, and Tookie haven't changed too much from their 1967 incarnations in basics, the reimagined Ursula and new Magnolia are unusual and interesting additions to the show. They fundamentally change how the show works by bringing different ideas to the table than the 1967 Ursula. The same applies with the new characters, Dr. Scott and Witch Doctor, and how old characters like Titheridge and Plumtree are gone. So with only 4 characters being fundamentally like their older selves (ignoring how the tonal changes result in them being executed differently), it's hard to evaluate the 2007 show as a remake of the original.
Animation-wise, I have little to say. The 2007 show uses early-2000s Flash, and the results while passable could definitely use improvements. It's pretty difficult to compare to the 1967 show's visuals, which were typical of Jay Ward's style (once again proving my point).
Overall, George of the Jungle 2007 is difficult to evaluate. On its own, it's a decent show that can be quite funny sometimes, but as a reboot, it's too different to compare to the original. Maybe because it's a Canadian reboot of an American show (speaking as a Canadian, Canadian cartoons are tonally different from American ones; even The Raccoons was very different from what 80s US cartoons had to offer), but the 2007 series has little to do with the 1967 show except in a few superficial elements. It's a standalone Tarzan spoof with its inspiration's name slapped on.