Live Action Lion King in the Works

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I tend to agree with this... Disney's really coasting on childhood nostalgia lately, with Cinderella, Maleficent, Beauty and the Beast, and I'm sure there were other recent live-action adaptations I've forgotten already.

I don't see the point. It's the most cynical cinema thing ever, and this coming from an industry that serves up umpteen-million Michael Bay Transformers movies and SAW movies and Fast and Furious movies.

It's like if I read the same bedtime story to my kids twice, but the second time, I used a funny voice.

Same story, different coat of paint. It's not evil, but man, is it coasting on nostalgia and goodwill (and brand loyalty).

[Leo656]

You forgot Jungle Book. Arguably the most important, as it was the first to be truly well-received by most everyone, and thus, the one that led to the current wave. Cinderella came and went with not a lot of fanfare, and Maleficent was a hit with some and a total miss with others, but Jungle Book was a huge smash and most people liked it, and that's the exact moment when Disney went publicly on-record with their plan of re-selling you your entire childhood with a new sheen of candy-gloss.

The same people who sh*t on The Force Awakens for being "the same exact movie as A New Hope" (even though it's "merely" Heavily Inspired By it, but definitely not "the exact same movie"), are generally chomping at the bit for this movie. Just putting it out there. If people are going to be so defensive in their opinions, they at least need to be consistent with them.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Leo656

You forgot Jungle Book. Arguably the most important, as it was the first to be truly well-received by most everyone, and thus, the one that led to the current wave. Cinderella came and went with not a lot of fanfare, and Maleficent was a hit with some and a total miss with others, but Jungle Book was a huge smash and most people liked it, and that's the exact moment when Disney went publicly on-record with their plan of re-selling you your entire childhood with a new sheen of candy-gloss.

The same people who sh*t on The Force Awakens for being "the same exact movie as A New Hope" (even though it's "merely" Heavily Inspired By it, but definitely not "the exact same movie"), are generally chomping at the bit for this movie. Just putting it out there. If people are going to be so defensive in their opinions, they at least need to be consistent with them.

As Nicholas Meyer said regarding Star Trek Into Darkness:

"In my sort of artistic worldview, if you’re going to do an homage, you have to add something. You have to put another layer on it, and they didn’t. Just by putting the same words in different characters’ mouths didn’t add up to anything, and if you have someone dying in one scene and sort of being resurrected immediately after there’s no real drama going on. It just becomes a gimmick or gimmicky, and that’s what I found it to be ultimately."

Incredibly apropos, methinks.

The Jungle Book live-action movie (the first of two, even!) tried to change things up a little, IIRC. And it made Mowgli a HUGE asshole. Not a win.

[Leo656]

Dude, the first part of that is almost exactly what my Creative Writing teacher used to say to us. He'd go on to explain that, if you can't do it "better", you're only going to invite comparison to the original, and/or piss people off, and that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. Pretty uncanny.

Maybe it's a "people who write" thing. Because that is eerily similar.

I always got it, though, and it always stuck with me. There's been a hundred sh*tty books that "reimagined" Dracula and Frankenstein, just because "Why not?" Only the originals matter, only the originals are remembered and/or discussed; the rest are just miles and miles of dead trees and wasted paper, all because "Why not?!"

"Why not?", for me, is a really sh*tty reason to do anything.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

"The Thing" was better than the movie it was spawned from. Crucial difference. The version of "Wizard of Oz" everyone knows is also a remake, also the best version. It happens occasionally.

"The Thing" (1982) is a film you have seen. "The Lion King" (2019) is a film you have not seen.
Surely you see the true crucial difference there.


It's always easy to tell, early on, if the "cover version" is going to be any better than the original. Rarely, the answer is yes. 99% of the time, the answer is No. You can tell FAR in advance, and if the answer is "No, it's not Better, it's just There," then nobody needs to have bothered. Waste of time, waste of resources. Sure, they've got the resources to waste, but they're still just jacking off and making people pay for it. I find it crass. Sorry if that bothers some folks.


I disagree that you can far tell in advance. That sounds ignorant, and honestly, a little pompous, to me. Not saying you are, but that's how I read a statement like that. I like to let the work speak for itself once it's good and ready. To each their own.

It's hilarious to me, because if you look closely, most of the same people who bemoan Hollywood for "never doing anything new" and make fun of Movie X for "trying to copy" Movie Y, are also the ones acting like Disney are some kind of heroes for this kind of lazy sh*t. And they don't even notice or realize their own hypocrisy. Same exact people.

I find this to be a common symptom of internet communication these days. Often you see people exclaiming that there is some type of hive-mind that can't seem to make up it's mind on a subject and keeps contradicting itself, when often it's just thousands of clashing opinions going back and forth.

Unless you have a specific example or person to point out, there's no point in claiming it's the exact same people making those statements. It's just anecdotal.

Yes, we ALL know that everything is Business First, and blah blah blah. THIS, though, is the single laziest, most blatant "These rubes will buy anything!" type of move I've ever seen anyone pull, and I really can't fathom why people are so enthusiastic about it. If it was just a little bit lazy, that'd be one thing. But again, this is a Van Sant "Psycho" situation, a 1:1 copy/paste. By all rights, if that movie was "A worthless piece of sh*t" for being exactly the same as it's inspiration, then people should have the same exact reaction for this one.

Okay, I'm gathering that you take umbrage with this film for being an extreme case of cash over artistic merit, in that the trailer is showing us "frame for frame" type shots, etc.
I can understand that, but I'd say that:

1.we really don't know whether it's going to turn out as a 100% copy/paste until we see the film. Trailers are for marketing purposes ("Hey, remember this??") and can often be deceiving.

2. I respect your opinion on the matter if that is the case, but I personally don't have as much of a problem with a remake of this type.

That's because I do expect it to have it's differences (we already know it will have some different songs - arguable half the appeal to a classic Disney film), and I do acknowledge they want to tell this story to a new audience, who perhaps wouldn't be interested in seeing a hand-drawn animated film, because it's not the medium they've grown up with. We've always passed timeless stories down and told them in new ways. Spider-Man's origin wouldn't be a great example, because it's been beat to death, but it is a great story that I do hope is told again in fifteen to twenty years.

As for the 'Psycho" comment/comparison, I really can't get behind this continued theme of treating the internet film-community as a "hive-mind" that must be held accountable for having more than one opinion. It's not. It's different people sharing different opinions that will often contradict one another.
If no one here is speaking on the "Psycho" remake, than it's just anecdotal.

Frankly, I don't think that remake OR this one is "a worthless piece of sh*t", but a little consistency in people's opinions would sure be nice. Then again, "Psycho" wasn't giving people a chance to buy more $50 stuffed animals, so maybe that's the variable.

I could talk to you all day about the scary, capitalism-riding, corporation-influencing, merchandising machine that is Disney. We'd probably agree on a lot of aspects and I bet you could teach me a few things, but what is most interesting is that you are so hell-bent against this movie, yet you want to go see it. If you're going to call Disney out, don't support the problem.

If you point the finger and shame everyone who is excited, then line up to buy a ticket, well, you just look like a confused bully.

Inserted my replies above, bolded. I probably got a big aggressive, but it's a lot of give and take around here. Enjoying the discussion with you all though.

[Leo656]

I'm far more annoyed than anything that you went and snagged the "Big Boss" handle before I could get around to it.

There's only room for ONE Boss... and one Snake... and thus, you and I are destined to forever be at odds.

... Also, definitely not ignorant, but I'll absolutely cop to "pompous". Thanks, bruh.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I'm far more annoyed than anything that you went and snagged the "Big Boss" handle before I could get around to it.

There's only room for ONE Boss... and one Snake... and thus, you and I are destined to forever be at odds.

... Also, definitely not ignorant, but I'll absolutely cop to "pompous". Thanks, bruh.

I have been intermittently attempting to change that tag-line forever, but haven't been able to figure out how. I honestly feel so dorky with it, especially thinking people who don't play MGS get to see it

As soon as I figure out how, it's yours, and I'll snag Solidus or something

[Leo656]

The last show I worked, I had them announce me and my crew as "hailing from Outer Heaven". Then they had me cut a promo on the Commissioner, so I got in his face and said "You might be 'the boss'... but you're talkin' to the BIG BOSS!" It actually got a pop, somehow.

Currently replaying the entire series in storyline order, playing Phantom Pain for the first time ever and trying to wonder how I ever even lived before this. If anyone's MGS fandom makes them a "dork", I'm probably first in that line.

If it makes you feel any better, I was Big Boss for Halloween this year. So, y'know.

[Candy Kappa]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Loved Lion King as a kid but it doesn't really bother me that this is happening. I do wonder the point, though, of making a "live action" movie where there isn't any actual "live action" things. Unless there's a good dose of real animals in the mix... but there doesn't appear to be.

I guess "photo-realistic cgi movie" is a mouthful, so live-action gets used. I remember some articles/reviews calling Beowulf from 2007 a LA movie

[TigerClaw]

I'm all for this remake. I always wonder what a live action Lion King would look like. And we are finally getting one. Even though its photo realistic CGI. But its the second best thing. CGI has so far come along to the point. That they can create just about anything with CGI and make it look as real as possible. You know these animators have been studying how the real animals move and behave. They probably went to an African safari to see these animals first hand to study there movements.

So we will know that these Lions and all the creatures in this movie will behave and act like the real counterparts. Only they will actually talk this time.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

I'm all for this remake. I always wonder what a live action Lion King would look like. And we are finally getting one. Even though its photo realistic CGI. But its the second best thing. CGI has so far come along to the point. That they can create just about anything with CGI and make it look as real as possible. You know these animators have been studying how the real animals move and behave. They probably went to an African safari to see these animals first hand to study there movements.

So we will know that these Lions and all the creatures in this movie will behave and act like the real counterparts. Only they will actually talk this time.

Actually, they did that in the animated one, too. More to the point, Disney has ALWAYS made a point of using REAL ANIMALS as models for the animators, not to mwntion their many previoys live-action animal films (Charley the Lonesome Cougar, and Perry, being just two examples.) No, they don't go to Africa for them, they find them in places like the San Diego Zoo, Monterey Bay Aquarium, etc.

But yes, they DO use live animals to film for inspiration. So I'm a bit stymied as to how folks can be so up in arms over CG, when it's really just the newest tool in the artist kit. Basically, it will be cg over live animals, with a bit of license taken here and there for the plot's sake. That's how Disney rolls- they always do the hard work first, laying down the storyboards and seeing what works, and in this case, that will probably mean going back to basics of animal behavior. (Though they have acres of stock footage in their archives to use for that- but it still requires TIME and STUDY.) Watch any number of old "making of" docs with Walt back in the day, or even newer ones from the "Renaissance Era" films, and you learn these little tidbits. Myself, I find the process itsrlf as fascinating as the movie, if not more. When you see how much work goes into it, you appreciate the medium for its own sake, not just as an artistic tool, but its own art FORM. It may seem lazy and cut and paste, but trying to copy even a minute of animation takes hours of work, and requires skill and understanding of art that most people simply don't have. So yes, I enjoy cg movies, as much for the artistry behind them as for the subject.

That said, redoing an older film in a new medium might be lazy, at least superficially, but consider how many artists make their living with it now. It's not going away. It is an extension of what animation is capable of, and in some ways comes far closer to unleashing the full potential of animation than anything else ever could. It's literally limited only by what one can imagine. Even the best animated films still come across a little "cartoonish", but with cg, you get "real life"- or something so close that it is almost impossible to tell the difference. (And actors can use stand ins, instead of talking to thin air in front of a green screen- something many of them appreciate. Just ask Brad Pitt....)

[TigerClaw]

I'm curious as to how Scar is going to look like. Of all the Lions from the Lion King. He's the one with the most distinct features. Yes he would have to have that scar over his eye. But he also has a very specific color that makes him Scar.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Seen some pics, Scar is still Scar. But more dangerous looking, like the lions in Ghost and the Darkness. Can't wait to hear the new take on Be Prepared. That song has always given me goosbumps, it's like if Vader suddenly broke into song, and you just KNOW it's because he's about to go blow up Alderaan! Chilling....

[TigerClaw]

‘Lion King’ Adds Amy Sedaris in Original Voice Role
https://variety.com/2018/film/news/l...is-1203036261/

She will voice an elephant shrew. a new character for this movie.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Actually, they did that in the animated one, too. More to the point, Disney has ALWAYS made a point of using REAL ANIMALS as models for the animators, not to mwntion their many previoys live-action animal films (Charley the Lonesome Cougar, and Perry, being just two examples.) No, they don't go to Africa for them, they find them in places like the San Diego Zoo, Monterey Bay Aquarium, etc.

The original behind-the scenes featurette for The Lion King hosted by Robert Guillaume was one of my favorites. Seeing all that stuff as a kid was almost more interesting than the movie.

To the other stuff, I've already voiced my opinion on CGI. Sterile, soulless, PS4, yadda yadda. Noooobody's gonna make me flip on it, so it is what it is. It was invented to add sizzle, not be the whole damn steak, and it always pulls me right out of whatever I'm watching, far more than obviously-staged sets or puppets or costumes ever did. At least those things have weight and depth and exist in a three-dimensional space.

Again, it's an opinion. I'm always shocked at HOW defensive people get when you point out that being "newer" doesn't at all mean "better". Is work being done? Sure, I guess. But the studios themselves openly say that they rely on CGI not because it actually IS "better", but because it's cheaper and saves time. That, to me, is not the way you should ever describe the "BEST" way of doing something. Rather, it's more like an admission of NOT wanting to spend the time, money, and effort, but rather, "Good enough is good enough."

I'unno. It ain't for me.
-----------------------------------

Were people really calling Beowulf "live action"? That's bizarre. I mean, they did a pretty good Angelina Jolie (she WISHES her curves were still that firm at that point ), but it was pretty obviously a cartoon. People are silly.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

It may seem lazy and cut and paste, but trying to copy even a minute of animation takes hours of work, and requires skill and understanding of art that most people simply don't have. So yes, I enjoy cg movies, as much for the artistry behind them as for the subject.

This is is what I’ve always thought. A lot of work goes into making even 1 scene of pretty much any movie.

Until studios can just type in a description on a computer and have it pop out a movie like some Looney Tunes device I can not discredit the work that’s put in.

Some turn out bad or not how we want but there’s usually other factors.

That said, redoing an older film in a new medium might be lazy, at least superficially, but consider how many artists make their living with it now. It's not going away. It is an extension of what animation is capable of, and in some ways comes far closer to unleashing the full potential of animation than anything else ever could. It's literally limited only by what one can imagine. Even the best animated films still come across a little "cartoonish", but with cg, you get "real life"- or something so close that it is almost impossible to tell the difference

I wonder what people will say when CGI actually reaches perfection. It has to at some point. Not to replace actors or the real world. I mean in general.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Iwonder what people will say when CGI actually reaches perfection.

"Shark still looks fake"

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Leo656

The original behind-the scenes featurette for The Lion King hosted by Robert Guillaume was one of my favorites. Seeing all that stuff as a kid was almost more interesting than the movie.

To the other stuff, I've already voiced my opinion on CGI. Sterile, soulless, PS4, yadda yadda. Noooobody's gonna make me flip on it, so it is what it is. It was invented to add sizzle, not be the whole damn steak, and it always pulls me right out of whatever I'm watching, far more than obviously-staged sets or puppets or costumes ever did. At least those things have weight and depth and exist in a three-dimensional space.

Again, it's an opinion. I'm always shocked at HOW defensive people get when you point out that being "newer" doesn't at all mean "better". Is work being done? Sure, I guess. But the studios themselves openly say that they rely on CGI not because it actually IS "better", but because it's cheaper and saves time. That, to me, is not the way you should ever describe the "BEST" way of doing something. Rather, it's more like an admission of NOT wanting to spend the time, money, and effort, but rather, "Good enough is good enough."

I'unno. It ain't for me.
-----------------------------------

Were people really calling Beowulf "live action"? That's bizarre. I mean, they did a pretty good Angelina Jolie (she WISHES her curves were still that firm at that point ), but it was pretty obviously a cartoon. People are silly.

Ok, I can respect that you think it's cheap, but at what point does the expense become more important than the end product? Does more expensive and time consuming- cg takes just as much time to render models as building huge sets or prosthetics- neccessarily equal "better"? I mean, what about movies like Jurassic Park, a franchise that basically introduced cg as a mainstream medium in big movies? At that time, cg was actually MORE expensive, because of the massive amount of computer power and number of people it took to render different aspects? Now, sure you can have a few people working on a project and turn out something life-like, but at the time it was considered a "novelty". Now it's just another tool, and one that can take over where real-life effects fail. (The scene between Han and Jabba in the hanger in SW NH special edition comes to mind. Puppeteering never COULD get that scene to work properly due to Jabba's size and shape, so when the cg tech became available, they used it to "undelete" that scene.) I'm not sure how that takes anyone out of the scene, unless you are just so set against using it that you LOOK for it. Whole backgrounds can be created that real-world effects can't even create, like the plant and animal life on Pandora in Avatar. It would have been virtually impossible to create such creatures using physical effects, since the effects would have to be hidden- most likely with cg!

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

"Why not?", for me, is a really sh*tty reason to do anything.

Personally I feel differently about this: there is a chance, no matter how small it is, that the new version might be superior to the original or will bring a new life to the franchise.
Like, I genuinely enjoy various recent takes on the Sherlock Holmes and the only reason they exist is desire of its producers to see what the property would look like if it was done with different flavor.

Of course, they are more failures than successful version, because, more often than not, such reboot / remakes are made as simple cashgrabs, carefully overseen by idiotic producers, who don't understand real art and interesting ideas. However, sometimes, lightning hits its mark and we got a good stuff like "Thing" and new Sherlock Holmes stuff.

Originally Posted by Leo656

To the other stuff, I've already voiced my opinion on CGI. Sterile, soulless, PS4, yadda yadda. Noooobody's gonna make me flip on it, so it is what it is. It was invented to add sizzle, not be the whole damn steak, and it always pulls me right out of whatever I'm watching, far more than obviously-staged sets or puppets or costumes ever did. At least those things have weight and depth and exist in a three-dimensional space.

I think, in some ways introduction of CGI had hurt creativity of the studios, as well, instead being the "TOOL" to make fun stuff, it has become the "FUN STUFF" in itself.
Too often producers think that if they put a lot of CGI in the movie, it will instantly become next Jurassic Park, except that they always keep forgetting that you need a good foreman to handle a tool.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Were people really calling Beowulf "live action"? That's bizarre. I mean, they did a pretty good Angelina Jolie (she WISHES her curves were still that firm at that point ), but it was pretty obviously a cartoon. People are silly.

I think some have compared it to "live action". But it never looked that way.
Spirits Within have looked more real to me.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

"Shark still looks fake"

You are so my hero.

Sumac: Fair points.

Duckie: Not a big fan of Jurassic Park, and while I tolerate them more than most, I can definitely admit that the Star Wars "Special Editions" CGI has aged like fruit, and that while they're a fun novelty, the stuff they added doesn't really "help" much.

Han/Jabba is a bad scene. It's as good as they could get it, but it simply doesn't belong in the movie anymore since it was originally scrapped and replaced with the Greedo scene. The dialog is exactly the same, making it even more obvious what happened, and to a person watching it for the first time who doesn't know (or care about) the "history" of this "lost scene", they just go, "Wow, what a pointless thing to do, giving us the exact same dialog twice within 5 minutes. This is poorly put together." And they're right. Multiple times, I've watched Star Wars S.E. with people who've never seen Star Wars at all, and they ALL go "WTF?" at the Han/Jabba scene for being completely redundant, and then I have to pause the movie, explain the whole thing, and they always go "OH... well, that's kinda stupid." The "best" thing about it, is that it foreshadows "Jedi", but still, it's an obvious retrofit, and it really hurts the flow of the movie. Once again, while I respect what they were trying to do, ultimately, it doesn't "fix" anything, it specifically makes that section of the movie worse for its inclusion.

It would be fine as a little Bonus thing in the Special Features, like "Look, here's a Lost Scene we never got to finish, here's what it would look like if we did it with modern SFX", because it's definitely kinda neat on its own and all that, but IN the movie itself, it hurts more than it helps. And, even after several "fixes" in subsequent re-releases, Jabba himself and Han "stepping on his tail" looks really, really, REALLY bad. If you don't think it looks bad, well... that's an opinion.

And hopefully you won't try to start telling me that whole "Jedi Rocks" scene in Jabba's Palace was worth anything.

Anyway, yeah, I get the points you're trying to make, but on me, personally, those points are not persuasive. More like, they do a better job supporting my own opinion that swaying me towards yours, because we clearly see these things from polar opposite perspective.
-------------------------------------------------

Just to be clear - and people can take this however they want, for whatever it's worth - if someone offers me the choice of something like "Avatar", or something like "Jason and the Argonauts", I'm choosing the latter every single time, 1000%. I just feel it's information that people need to know before they start trying to convince me of how keen CGI is. It's like my Dad always trying to convince me the Grateful Dead is actually good music. You're not gonna convince me, don't give yourself an ulcer trying. We can agree to disagree, it's fine.

With regard to the Lion King remake, so many people are entranced JUST because it's CGI, and to me, that's just "meh". In and of itself that kind of thing has never impressed me. I'm a much tougher lay than that, sorry.