Live Action Lion King in the Works

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Fair enough. I just appreciate any artistic medium for what it can potentially create, as I've had some art and theater classes and am an art lover and creative type myself. I'm into the technical stuff in films almost as much as the creative aspect, too, so I tend to look at the tools (and what they can accomplish) as simply part of the larger whole. I enjoy studying what new developments are being made, and how/where they are put to use. (And for what it's worth, I was using the Jabba scene as an example of what it DID accomplish in contrast to what the puppetry is capable of- namely, having Jabba as a living, moving being. They never were able to make him mobile with the puppeteering. He was too big, bulky, and required to much animatronic equipment.)

[Leo656]

They certainly accomplished it. The ultimate quality of the execution? Hmmm.

Hey, I'm a lover of art, too, I'm just not much of a technophile. In and of itself, "Look what we can do with technology" has never impressed me, regardless of when, where, or how.

Obviously, as a huge video game fan, for example, I much appreciate the advances in graphics that have come along, but I'm still more concerned with how they handle than anything.

The best way I can sum it up about me, I guess... is there's a really thick line between "appreciation" and "being impressed", if that makes any sense. I can appreciate something without actually being overly enthusiastic about it. I appreciate many things, but am not impressed by much.

God only gave my my cynicism and my hair; one is guaranteed to last forever, the other is 50/50.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Lol, well, you've got an even chance, barring bad genes!

Honestly, I never said I was IMPRESSED, just eager to see how it looks and translates into a more "realistic" medium/setting. Like, we've already seen how thwy can get the animals to "talk" with Jungle Book, but will the story carry over as well? Curiosity has me in its clutches- I may as well be part cat when it comes to certain subjects, as I will latch onto something and "stalk" it until satisfied. I also play with my prey....

[ranger_scout]

Linda Woolverton, who did some script-writing for the original movie, is nervous about this one.

https://insidethemagic.net/2018/12/l...us-for-remake/

[Egon1982]

I have to say it. Too many people have lowered expectations or vague semblances of standards. Especially when it comes to films. The idea that any film is good if it entertained someone, and it provides jobs is to me personally a giant load of steaming crap.

First off, I have no issue if people are entertained by any film. Second, I also appreciate the hard work that gets put into making a film by multiple different people. But for me, the fact that a film was entertaining or that it provided work for someone is not enough of a reason for me to give a film a pass, or to lower my standards or to erase them completely.

Every film should not be a success. Just like every film should not be a failure. Whether it's financially or critically every film should have some kind of barometer for quality. If the barometer is nonexistent or is centered around vague concepts, then there are no heights for a film to climb to, no rewards, and nothing is ever at stake.

And film to me personally is more than just a source of entertainment. It's an art form. It's storytelling. And it is also a product. And as a form of storytelling and art, I want it to be able to continually evolve and to improve. And it will not be able to do that if people adopt the mindset that every film no matter how bad it is or how worthless its value is to cinema as a whole is good, let alone acceptable. Nothing ever gets better that way.

Constructive criticism is vital for improvement and sustained success. Patting every film on the back is not going to produce much improvement let alone success. It has to be held accountable sometimes for failure. Without that accountability, nothing will ever change. The quality of cinema will stay stagnant because the audience has placed their standards to such a low point that the quality never rises. It just stays mired in mediocrity or total ****.

And as a product, I expect the film to be of as high quality as it can be. If the film has a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, I expect great effects and production values. If it has a low budget I expect the filmmakers to use what little they have to great effect. I also expect the stories to be somewhat original and spins on old ideas. Not lazy retreads of popular stories, characters, and franchises that I already know about and have seen plenty of already.

And the fact that films create jobs is not enough of a reason for me to have lowered standards or none at all. It's great that they provide work opportunities for people. But do you think every pizza you order with delivery is good, let alone great just because it provided a job for the person who made it? I sincerely doubt that you feel that way. I know I don't.

It's the same with films. Just like the pizza, whether or not it provided work for people is completely irrelevant to the overall quality of the product. And if someone enjoys that slice of low effort burnt pizza that doesn't make that pizza worth being made and served to the masses. The same applies to films. If an incompetent, poorly written film gets made and is universally reviled it should not be considered a success just because it got made and one person on the internet kinda of liked it.

If you adopt the mindset that every film is worth being made because it provided work or entertainment? That's fine. But keep in mind that this mindset is devastating for the form of entertainment you enjoy and consume. It essentially gives every film no matter how critics or audiences perceive it a gold star. And if critics and audiences as a whole took that mindset? Studios would crank out low effort films that were mediocre at best until they ran out of money or till the end of time. If you want film studios and filmmakers to strive for above average let alone great? You have to have higher standards than this. I am a movie lover with high standards.

The biggest problem with film today if you ask me boils down to the audiences themselves.

I would argue it's not audiences getting dumber that's the problem. It's audiences lowering their expectations that is. So much of the mass audience nowadays that sees films have standards that are so low that all that matters is that the film was entertaining or had a few scenes they liked. And it's a good if not great movie.

They are also lacking respect for elder cinema, and don't have the necessary knowledge of what makes a film good, great or even truly terrible. They lack appreciation for every aspect of filmmaking and don't really know what is truly good, bad or even mediocre because their standards are so low.

And Hollywood studios know this. This is why they pump out formulaic lazy sequels, remakes, prequels and reboots because they know the audiences eat it up and does not ask that much of them anymore.

Yes. There are exceptions. But they are clearly outnumbered by the mass amount of people who have lowered expectations and let their viewing habits and opinions on films be skewed by youtube videos and rotten tomatoes scores. Further spreading this cancerous disease of little to no standards for filmmaking or storytelling. And the death of the individual opinion amongst the hordes of audience members. The people who say "just watch a movie" or "don't judge it, it's just entertainment."

Need to shut the hell up when it comes to critiquing any review of a movie. Their standards are so low that no one should ever come to them for advice or recommendations of films or take them seriously.

I get pissed at watching a ****** movie, because I actually care. That's why. I care about the filmmaking process and films are more than just strictly entertainment to me. That's only part of it. A considerable part of the effectiveness of any film, but not the only part.

If a film wastes my time, is boring, and has next to no redeeming qualities, I should be upset and so should you. If you aren't that's another problem all together. We have ourselves to blame! eventually the returns are going to diminish and when they do? We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Or more importantly, do you? And if you don't want to see this? Then don't pay for it. Speak with your wallet. Wait to rent those films on blu ray or dvd. Don't just pay for a ticket just because of name recognition. That is exactly what leads to more remakes, prequels, reboots and sequels and the death of originality in mainstream cinema.

I have no desire to see it but slavishly praising the live action Beauty and the Beast and not realizing it for the shameless cash grab that it is? hate that they are doing this. There's a reason why adapting classic fairytales into animation works best. These live action films have been mediocre to disastrous. Although Jungle Book wasn't quite a direct remake of the 1967 film but there were some homages to it and more of another adaptation of Kipling's novel unlike a direct shot to shot remake of Beauty and the Beast. Is the reason why we get so many half assed remakes made and released in theaters? That exact mindset.

This is such a great video. And it savagely smacks Disney where it hurts with a brilliant rendition of Part Of Your World. Disney truly does feel that they are too big to fail. Which is why I am going to tell that mouse to suck it and ban his furry ass in 2019.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydYKtmtIV14

I want the Disney that made the original and was a genuine trendsetter back in the good old days. Not the current version which is just pumping out reheated left overs, bad Pirates sequels with a upcoming reboot, sequels to Pixar films (except Incredibles 2 which i wanted a sequel since 2004 and Toy Story 4 is not needed when the story ended with 3 as your just beating a dead horse after 3) and failed adaptations of parts of their park like Tomorrowland.

I have come to the sobering reality that in essence the audiences going to movies today are to blame for the chain of unoriginality being unbroken. For the countless streams of sequels, reboots, and remakes. No. They are rolling in your cash. They have no reason to stop rehashing the same plotlines and using the same formula over and over again. And is that really what you want? You can't keep doing the same thing again, and again, and again, and keep expecting the same result. Eventually the returns are going to diminish and when they do? We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Also have you heard they have now officially axed X-force due to the Fox Merger!? This right here proves that Disney does not give a flying **** about the property nor what it has achieved when the first film came out. I've been on the hard edge against Disney in the past few months but im honestly at the point where im now officially throwing in the towel and kick the Mouse ciao and goodbye for good. They screwed up star wars, they are greedy as **** and power hungry even when it comes to suing someone over a fan film as i heard lately, they wanna constantly silence fans and push agendas, their Marvel films needs a serious break and screw all those lazy piece of **** live action in name only rip off remakes plus Toy Story 4 but i will give Disney chance if it's something new like Zootopia or the Wreck it Ralph franchise or if Pixar stops with sequels (although Incredibles 2 was the only sequel since Toy Story 3 i find enjoyable). I've been feeling this for a long time but the recent X-force cancellation is the absolute final nail for me.

I am done with Disney period unless there's something new/fresh like Zootopia and Wreck it Ralph. They are a monopoly and something needs to be done to make them at least change their course a bit. I know it hurts, but it's the honest truth and comes from my heart.

[Egon1982]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Oof. This is tough for me. "The Lion King" is one of my favorites.

Clearly, a lot of work went into this. That much is obvious. "As real as real life"? Don't make me laugh. But still, obviously a lot of money went into the CGI. I do agree with those who say, like everything else that's heavily CGI, in about 5 years we'll get over it and think it looks dated, because it's unavoidable.

I just... look, it's CLEARLY the exact same movie. When Gus Van Sant remade "Psycho" with Vince Vaughn, they tried to be as reverent as possible to the original film, but they were slammed for, essentially, making a Xerox copy of something that was already just fine. Now, personally, I think the criticism was overblown, but fair, and still relevant. The question remains: "Do we NEED this?"

It's not "hate" or "bitterness" to point out the simple fact that this is the very definition of a cash grab. They're willing to spend a few million dollars on a guaranteed sale in order to make BILLIONS more, because the hard work has already been done, and audiences have shown they'll gladly show up to watch the same thing they've already seen. Like, I understand the enthusiasm, but don't pretend for one second that they're doing this because they love you guys. It's because it's the easiest, laziest way to make another billion (or two). And part of me greatly resents that.

I genuinely don't think anyone thinks these remakes are "better" than the originals. Nobody I personally know watches them more often than the classics; they're a mere novelty. "Beauty and the Beast" was fine, to me, but ultimately pointless, and the original is still probably better. The whole "Look what we can do with computers!" stuff grinds on me as well, because I could write a book on my hatred of CGI over practical effects. That's another thing, just how blatantly masturbatory these projects are. It's like they exist JUST to show off how much money they spent, which in itself is vulgar.

That said, I will almost definitely see it in theaters, and buy the home version, but I am not fully in support of this project. Those who point out that it is pointless and unnecessary are simply telling the truth. You can choose to ignore it or not, but the facts remain. Unless you're one of those people who's bedazzled by CGI, it's impossible to ignore how transparent the entire exercise is.

The original was lightning in a bottle and you can't strike it twice eh?

[FredWolfLeonardo]

I have no concern about the tone or the story of the upcoming film.

Unlike with the Jungle Book, The Lion King's Live Action remake will only have one source to borrow from in terms of story.

This would offset one of the complaints I had about the 2016 Jungle Book, that it mixed elements of the 1967 film and the Rudyard Kipling stories too much. Mixing them erases what made each individual version so special despite being so different. The Lion King won't have that problem.

However, I am heavily concerned about the presentation of the film. I don't like the use of excessively dull colours in the trailer, and the realistic look of the animals that Disney has chosen to go with for films like The Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast (for the Beast himself).

The end result does not mix well for me, when we are trying to portray colourful characters on screen. The whole point of the original designs is that despite being animals, they have very animated expressions and features which makes them instantly lovable. I don't see that in any of the CG characters because it tries to be too realistic, which ends up paradoxically backfiring by making them even less relatable.

I love the Original Lion King, but not primarily for the story which I think is good, but not the best. I primarily love it for the great animation and atmosphere. Presentation matters alot, and the Remake has a lot to live up to if it is to blow audiences away just like the original did back in 1994.

[ranger_scout]

This trailer looks epic.

[Vicky82]

Originally Posted by ranger_scout

This trailer looks epic.

Awesome

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by ranger_scout

This trailer looks epic.

This looks arguably too similar to the original movie. It's impressively animated, I'll admit that but everything about the trailers so far scream shot-for-shot remake.

[Autbot_Benz]

Originally Posted by ranger_scout

This trailer looks epic.

Looks ok but entirely pointless. If I wanna watch The Lion King I'll go for my signature collection in my blu ray shelf.

[Aaronardo]

Because, you know, if it's realistic it's for adults now, because animated films aren't for adults.

It's not like this movie was made for any other reason. Can't get mad at Disney about it though. Re-releasing their earlier movies but without the charm and personality of the originals is dumb as hell and to an extent, lazy, but as long as people will pay to see it, what's the point in stopping?

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Pretty much a shot for shot remake, even moreso than the Jungle Book, so I;m really not that excited.

Will still check it out, though for the novelty factor.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Oh, wow. That looks A-MAZ-ING! I'm excited to see this even more so now, since I can already see some differences, and the epic feel of the original is really showing here. Love the sheer beauty of this!

[Leo656]

Eh, nah. Same movie, new filter. Not impressed at all. "We push some buttons and make stuff on a computer." Great job doing what you're s'posed to do.

I'm sure my wife will drag me to see it, but as others have said, I've already seen this movie a million times and a new coat of paint isn't enough to "Wow" me. And there's nothing "wrong" with the original that makes this necessary at all.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

To each their own. I already spotted some new dialog, which by itself tells me this will be different enough to warrant seeing. That, and the scene of Timone and Puumba singing in the jungle is a bit different as well. Makes me think there will still be some surpises. I'm in.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

At least with the Jungle Book 2016, there was some stuff different from the original which were fun and interesting (such as King Louie being a mafia-boss esque Gigantophitecus instead of a party-holic Orangutan, or the concept of a Peace Rock which never existed in any prior Jungle Book).

Looking at this trailer, I can't tell anything that is really different from the original Lion King, besides bits of dialogue here and there, which makes the whole thing seem pointless.

The full movie might prove me wrong though, and that's what I'm hoping for, since I'd love to see stuff that wasn't in the original that much, such as Scar's rule as king, and maybe even showcase the Lion King 2 villains before they were banished.

[Leo656]

Put it this way, if they managed to shoot it with real, trained animals, I'd be somewhat impressed. But they're never gonna do that for budget and "moral outrage" reasons. I'd even accept if they "had" to CGI the mouths (although the ol' peanut butter on the roof of their mouth trick seemed to work fine back in the day, and I'm sure no animals were traumatized by it). It's still "just a cartoon", they've simply swapped Personality for "Realism".

CGI does not impress me, nor has it ever, nor will it ever. And it really seems as though "Lookit all this fancy-schmancy stuff we can do with computers nowadays!" is the entire reason they're (re)making these things, and since I completely don't care about that stuff, I need more of a reason to get invested. A few alternate spoken words won't do.

I'm sure it will be entertaining for what it is, and I doubt people will dislike it, but if you're at all like me, there's simply nothing to see here.

[ProphetofGanja]

Hot Take: this movie will be one of the worst live-action Disney adaptations. Too much expectation, too much reverence for source material, too little effort put into making this remake stand out.

I predict Aladdin will be better, if only for expectations being lower

[Leo656]

They both almost certainly have to do better than Dumbo, at least.