Live Action Lion King in the Works

[Vicky82]

Hakuna matata, the new 'Lion King' is coming

Can you feel the excitement today? Disney officially announced Wednesday that a live-action version of the animated classic The Lion King is in the works, directed by The Jungle Book’s Jon Favreau.

The beloved 1994 children’s movie starring Simba, Mufasa, and various animal kingdom friends (and enemies) is one of Disney’s most long-lasting and lucrative hits, raking in nearly $969 million over its lifetime, according to Disney’s announcement. (When you add in its wildly successful stage adaptations, The Lion King has grossed more globally than any other film, Broadway show, or entertainment title “in box office history,” the company contends.) This new take on the musical cartoon follows in the footsteps of other entries in Disney’s animated library that have been transformed into live-action masterpieces: the upcoming Beauty and the Beast starring Emma Watson, last year’s Jungle Book, and previously, the fairy tales of Cinderella and Maleficent, and Pete’s Dragon.

Favreau, who is uniquely prepared for this franchise given his experience with the animal-centric Jungle Book remake, has been behind blockbusters like Iron Man and the ever-popular holiday movie Elf, too. No release date or further details on casting have yet been announced.

http://time.com/4511368/disney-lion-king-reboot/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter

I'm actually looking forward to this, The Lion King is my favorite Disney Movie .

Now Disney can we have a live action Gargoyles Movie please.

[TurtleTitan97]

This has to be, without hyperbole, the dumbest idea for a remake by far.

Lion King doesn't even have humans, WHY WOULD YOU MAKE IT LIVE ACTION, DISNEY?!?!? :mad:

This better turn out well like The Jungle Book, cause I'm mad as heck right now.

[TigerClaw]

http://time.com/4511368/disney-lion-king-reboot/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter

I'm actually looking forward to this, The Lion King is my favorite Disney Movie .

Now Disney can we have a live action Gargoyles Movie please.
Live Action? The movie will be mostly CGI because there are no humans in the Lion King, The Jungle Book had Live Action cause it had an actual person surrounded by CGI animals, It'll be interesting to see how they will do this, cause the Lions would have to look photo real like the animals in the Jungle Book.

[Andrew NDB]

I want live-action "Treasure Planet."

[ToTheNines]

Live action Brave Little Toaster.

[Jephael]

Live Action Who Framed Roger Rabbit- wait a sec...

[Utrommaniac]

I want live-action "Treasure Planet."

God, f***ing PREACH.
I'd be happy with the TV show that got canned. I would have loved to explore that universe a bit more. Though, it would take away the awesomeness of Silver being half 2D animated and half 3D animated - a feat that as far as I know, hasn't been achieved since. And an awesome feat at that.

I'm all for a live action Gargoyles as well. That was my TMNT as a kid...in the early 2000s? So was Treasure Planet.

A live action Lion King doesn't really make sense. Unless they're doing it like Dinosaur was done. Live action environments with CG characters.

[Autbot_Benz]

The only good thing that can come from this is maybe Disney will get there heads out of their asses and re release the original Lion King on Blu Ray and DVD again for those who missed out on earlier releases.

[Commenter 42]

Live action Brave Little Toaster.

You're GD right you do.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Well, if it's by Jon Favreau who absolutely NAILED live action Jungle Book this year...

Still skeptical, but not outright hostile.

[plastroncafe]

Jungle Book was much better than I expected it to be, though rewording the song to add gigantopithicus was a bit...much. I honestly think the King Louie song was the weakest point of the movie.

[Spike Spiegel]

The only good thing that can come from this is maybe Disney will get there heads out of their asses and re release the original Lion King on Blu Ray and DVD again for those who missed out on earlier releases.

QFT

Does the Vault still exist with that "Disney Movies Anywhere" app?

[TheSkeletonMan939]

How far will they go?
Will we see Winnie the Pooh... in LIVE-ACTION!
How about Lilo & Stitch... in LIVE-ACTION!

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

How far will they go?
Will we see Winnie the Pooh... in LIVE-ACTION!
How about Lilo & Stitch... in LIVE-ACTION!

We already ARE getting a live-action Winnie-the-Pooh with a grown-up Christopher Robin.

As for Lilo and Stitch... could be fun. <shrug>

[plastroncafe]

It would depend on who was doing the character design for Stitch.
My vote is del Toro!

[Utrommaniac]

You know what? Yes to Live-Action Lilo and Stitch as well.

Especially with Moana coming out.

I've said before that Treasure Planet and Lilo and Stitch are my Disney Double Features. I would enjoy live actions big time.

No need to worry about live action 101 Dalmations, unless you want to count the Cruella de Ville backstory. I'm not sure how you can justify "I only wished to make a coat out of puppies".

[drgon78]

A "live action" Lion King sounds like a horrible idea.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

We already ARE getting a live-action Winnie-the-Pooh with a grown-up Christopher Robin

http://lordheath.com/web_images/james_finlayson___big_business.jpg

[plastroncafe]

You know what? Yes to Live-Action Lilo and Stitch as well.

Especially with Moana coming out.

I've said before that Treasure Planet and Lilo and Stitch are my Disney Double Features. I would enjoy live actions big time.

No need to worry about live action 101 Dalmations, unless you want to count the Cruella de Ville backstory. I'm not sure how you can justify "I only wished to make a coat out of puppies".

She's one of my favorite villains because of that.
Everyone else wanted power or revenge...she's just the twisto who wanted to wear a dog coat.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Disey already DID a live action 101 Dalmations. Glenn Close played Cruella. It was technically their first animated-to-live translation remake.

[Autbot_Benz]

QFT

Does the Vault still exist with that "Disney Movies Anywhere" app?

I think it does cause when I go to look at earlier Lion King releases they are super expensive. Also Disney's newest Cash Cow is the Signature series. Its when something has had a Platinum and Diamond release it gets a Signature next. Lion King is still in the Vault its last release was 2011

[TheCanadiandrome]

remember there is a Broadway production, which i've seen btw, and it was amazing, so yes a LA Lion King could be done, if done right

[TurtleTitan97]

remember there is a Broadway production, which i've seen btw, and it was amazing, so yes a LA Lion King could be done, if done right

.....Are you seriously comparing a freaking Broadway musical to a LIVE ACTION MOVIE??? :roll:

[BubblyShell22]

Since it's the same guy who directed The Jungle Book, I think this will be pretty good if done right.

[plastroncafe]

.....Are you seriously comparing a freaking Broadway musical to a LIVE ACTION MOVIE??? :roll:

To be fair, Julie Taymore did the staging for that musical, and she's worked in film...and is also amazing.

So long as you ignore that whole "Turn Off the Dark" thing.

[TigerClaw]

I'm curious on who they will get for the voices, I hope they can get Jeremy Irons to voice Scar in this adaption, nobody can do Scar better then him.

[TurtleTitan97]

To be fair, Julie Taymore did the staging for that musical, and she's worked in film...and is also amazing.

So long as you ignore that whole "Turn Off the Dark" thing.

That's not the point.

A Broadway musical does absolutely nothing to prove a Live-Action Lion King can work as TheCanadiandrome stated.

This is a completely stupid idea. I swear if they insert humans into this....

[Cure]

This is a completely stupid idea. I swear if they insert humans into this....

What are you gonna do? Complain on the internet some more?

[snake]

I liked the jungle book so I'll probably like this.

[Wildcat]

Don't see why anyone is surprised. Disney has been making live action versions of their movies which pretty cool.

Wasn't Aladdin going to be live-actioned too? That's what I wanted. Toy Story would be cool too.

[Commenter 42]

I saw the stage show, it's not for everyone.

I enjoyed the end credits of Junglebook the most. It's been years, so I don't really recall much of the 2D version.

It was great in CG, even if imperfect. If anything it might have suffered from its own ambition.

Do I want a Lion King that feels like a talking animal doc? Um, yeah, I do.
Do I want it to be directed by Favereau? I think so?
Will it be great?

Is the Lion King a great story? Lol, hell no. Horrible values about the haves and have nots, and knowing your place.

So, yeah... Not on board there; would much rather see Animal Farm, tbh.

[ssjup81]

Seems weird to make a live-action film of something without any human characters. How about a live-action Rescuers Down Under. :-PI'm curious on who they will get for the voices, I hope they can get Jeremy Irons to voice Scar in this adaption, nobody can do Scar better then him.I dunno, Jim Cummings might be able to.;)Don't see why anyone is surprised. Disney has been making live action versions of their movies which pretty cool.Still seems they'd adapt a film with actual human characters, though.

[plastroncafe]

What are you gonna do? Complain on the internet some more?

Best comment in the thread right here.

[TigerClaw]

These movie never tells you what really goes on with the Lions, The Prides usually have more females then males, and the dominant male have sex with all the females, Its the part of the Circle Of Life that Disney doesn't want people to see. lol

[plastroncafe]

Yeah, it's more than likely that Nala and Simba were siblings. Also, when a ne male takes over a pride he kills all the cubs.

[TigerClaw]

Yeah, it's more than likely that Nala and Simba were siblings. Also, when a ne male takes over a pride he kills all the cubs.
Yeah, sometimes the male would hump another male to assert dominance.

[plastroncafe]

Yeah, sometimes the male would hump another male to assert dominance.

Think of how different the movie would have been if Simba returned to find Scar had killed all his friends, which is usually what happens after a dominant male is deposed as pack stud.

[TheCanadiandrome]

That's not the point.

A Broadway musical does absolutely nothing to prove a Live-Action Lion King can work as TheCanadiandrome stated.

This is a completely stupid idea. I swear if they insert humans into this....

Well I disagree with you but whatever

[TigerClaw]

The live action remake gets Jeff Nathanson as the screenwriter, He's done movies such as Catch Me If You Can, The Terminal, Tower Heist, and the Rush Hour movies.
http://deadline.com/2016/10/lion-king-movie-jeff-nathanson-writer-disney-jon-favreau-1201836009/

[Autbot_Benz]

Jon Favreau Announced on Twitter James Earl Jones is back as Mufasa and Donald Glover will be Simba


https://twitter.com/Jon_Favreau/status/832747544450998274


https://twitter.com/Jon_Favreau/status/832754734557601792

[TurtleTitan97]

I may not be a fan of the idea of a live action Lion King, but pretty neat they brought back Jones for Mufasa. My interest has piqued a little bit.

[Vicky82]

Jon Favreau Announced on Twitter James Earl Jones is back as Mufasa and Donald Glover will be Simba


https://twitter.com/Jon_Favreau/status/832747544450998274


https://twitter.com/Jon_Favreau/status/832754734557601792

Awesome that they brought back James Earl Jones Back.

They Should bring back Jeremy Irons as Scar again, Whoopi Goldberg as
Shenzi again, Jim Cummings as ED again.

[ssjup81]

Awesome that they brought back James Earl Jones Back.

They Should bring back Jeremy Irons as Scar again, Whoopi Goldberg as
Shenzi again, Jim Cummings as ED again.Aw, no love for Cheech Marin. :P

[Vicky82]

Aw, no love for Cheech Marin. :P

Oh yeah the other Hyena, yeah him too.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

The only reason I would be remotely interested in this would be if Atkinson returned as Zazu.

[TigerClaw]

Jon Favreau Announced on Twitter James Earl Jones is back as Mufasa and Donald Glover will be Simba


https://twitter.com/Jon_Favreau/status/832747544450998274


https://twitter.com/Jon_Favreau/status/832754734557601792
That's great news, You can't replace James Earl Jones as Mufasa, Donald Glover as Simba is a pretty good choice too.

[TigerClaw]

Awesome that they brought back James Earl Jones Back.

They Should bring back Jeremy Irons as Scar again, Whoopi Goldberg as
Shenzi again, Jim Cummings as ED again.
If not, they should cast Benedict Cumberbatch as Scar, He would be perfect.

[turtle1237]

Didn't we have lots of live action "Lion Kings?" From Robin Williams to Mel Gibson all star in one.

[TigerClaw]

Looks like Disney and Jon Favreau's top choice for Nala, Is Beyonce.
https://variety.com/2017/film/news/beyonce-lion-king-remake-nala-1202019931/

[ProphetofGanja]

How is this going to be a live action film?

[TigerClaw]

How is this going to be a live action film?
Maybe the environments will be real, but all the animals will be CGI.

[NinjaPug]

How is this going to be a live action film?

It's not. #FakeNews

[ProphetofGanja]

Maybe the environments will be real, but all the animals will be CGI.

Nope.

It's not. #FakeNews

Yup.

This will probably be filmed entirely on sound stages like The Jungle Book was, except this film won't even have the one human non-CGI character. Still, could be good though.

[TigerClaw]

Nope.



Yup.

This will probably be filmed entirely on sound stages like The Jungle Book was, except this film won't even have the one human non-CGI character. Still, could be good though.
Yeah, I think they will do the same thing they did with the Jungle Book, Just with no humans.

[Leofan26]

How the heck would this work? Live action musical sure, film? It's action, they are supposed to talk and stuff, not to mention the musical scenes. I'm still confused about what they are doing with Little Mermaid live action, I haven't seen the trailer yet, I know Splash the 80s film was supposed to based off of that but what about the crab and the colorful cast?

This doesn't sit well with me.

The only way I could see this film working for me is if it turned out to be a documentary on Africa with lions fighting each other for territory and subplot with romance between the King Lion and female Lion. What about the fabulous duo though? They were in my opinion some of the best parts of the film >>

[ProphetofGanja]

How the heck would this work? Live action musical sure, film? It's action, they are supposed to talk and stuff, not to mention the musical scenes. I'm still confused about what they are doing with Little Mermaid live action, I haven't seen the trailer yet, I know Splash the 80s film was supposed to based off of that but what about the crab and the colorful cast?

This doesn't sit well with me.

The only way I could see this film working for me is if it turned out to be a documentary on Africa with lions fighting each other for territory and subplot with romance between the King Lion and female Lion. What about the fabulous duo though? They were in my opinion some of the best parts of the film >>

It's not going to feature footage of real-life lions, it's going to be all CGI. The use of the phrase "live-action" is misleading in this case.

And the live-action Little Mermaid film that's coming out soon isn't from Disney

[FredWolfLeonardo]

The original was a great film. This new reboot should improve upon the weaknesses of the original in order to stand out rather than be a carbon copy, that's what I'm most looking forward to.

1. Scar should still be an interesting character, even after he becomes king. In the original, he started out cunning and subtle but became a big baby as soon as he was in rule.

2. The main lesson. To know what I'm talking about, look at Nostalgia Critics review of the film. There were great moral lessons within the film (the past can hurt) but I think Simba confronting Scar about his past was seriously flawed because he's confronting a past that never happened, no one supported him when he confessed and it took a very convenient give away by Scar to give Simba the edge.

[Autbot_Benz]

Release date is July 19th 2019

https://twitter.com/Jon_Favreau/status/856930957365977088

[Zany Orange Dude]

As far as live action Lion King goes, I'm terrified of what it will look like. CGI animals always have a way of looking like they belong in the uncanny valley, in my opinion at least.

[NinjaPug]

Release date is July 19th 2019

https://twitter.com/Jon_Favreau/status/856930957365977088

Guess that means Indy 5 is getting pushed

Edit: just saw it got pushed to July 2020

[ranger_scout]

Release date is July 19th 2019

https://twitter.com/Jon_Favreau/status/856930957365977088

That's one month after the 25th anniversary of the original film. It makes sense to release it around that time.

[TigerClaw]

Pumbaa and Timon have been cast with Seth Rogen And Billy Eichner
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/fantasy/the-lion-king-live-action-remake-adds-seth-rogen-and-billy-eichner-as-pumbaa-and-timon-a150620

[Cure]

I wouldn't have thought of Seth Rogen for Pumbaa but I think it's a pretty good fit.

[NinjaPug]

I'll watch anything with Billy Eichner (I was going to watch this anyway)

[Shark_Blade]

2019 eh? The same year Frozen 2 is coming.

[NinjaPug]

Disney is going to make so much money in 2019 - Lion King, Frozen 2, Star Wars IX, Avengers 4, Toy Story 4, Captain Marvel and probably their live action Aladdin. I think they'll be breaking the box office record they set in 2016.

[ranger_scout]

John Oliver has joined the film as Zazu.

http://ew.com/movies/2017/07/10/john-oliver-lion-king-zazu-disney/

[ProphetofGanja]

John Oliver has joined the film as Zazu.

http://ew.com/movies/2017/07/10/john-oliver-lion-king-zazu-disney/

That seems pretty fitting

[Shark_Blade]

Oh, one of my favorite show host. Let's get Stephen Colbert and Trevor Noah too, yeah Disney?

[TigerClaw]

John Oliver has joined the film as Zazu.

http://ew.com/movies/2017/07/10/john-oliver-lion-king-zazu-disney/
That's pretty good casting, he's perfect for Zazu.

[TurtleTitan97]

Hugh Jackman is playing Scar: http://screenrant.com/lion-king-remake-hugh-jackman-scar-cast/

[Autbot_Benz]

that's good casting Hugh as Scar

[ranger_scout]

Hugh Jackman is playing Scar: http://screenrant.com/lion-king-remake-hugh-jackman-scar-cast/

that's good casting Hugh as Scar

His representatives said that it's absolutely not true.

http://www.thewrap.com/no-hugh-jackman-isnt-playing-scar-in-the-lion-king-remake/

[sdp]

Are they using real lions and locals or CG lions/environments? If they're CG wouldn't this be a computer animated movie and not a live action version? At least The Jungle Book had a human..

[NinjaPug]

Did people really assume Hugh was voicing Scar just because he was at Disneyland during D23? Idiots.

[TurtleWA]

Disey already DID a live action 101 Dalmations. Glenn Close played Cruella. It was technically their first animated-to-live translation remake.

Wasn't there a 1994 jungle book with Jason Scott Lee. I dont know the criteria for the live action remake category but 101 Dalmatians was 1996. Did the 94 jungle book not count for some reason?

[TigerClaw]

Are they using real lions and locals or CG lions/environments? If they're CG wouldn't this be a computer animated movie and not a live action version? At least The Jungle Book had a human..
All the animals are CGI, they are using the same tech from The Jungle Book.

[ProactiveMan]

It stretches the definition of live-action doesn't it?! It will be interesting to see what Disney's marketing angle is, because they are basically making an animated remake of one of their most successful animated movies, presumably in a more realistic but arguably less expressive style. Where's the upside? Why is this better from an audience's point of view? Are they aiming for kids who haven't seen the Lion King? Do kids think 2D animation is lame, or does Disney think they need a modern roster of name actors to sell it nowadays?

[sdp]

The Lion King is my favorite Disney movie so I'll be checking it out regardless and I'm sure many people will. We've had all these live action remakes of movies I didn't really love so finally I get one for "my" generation, I'm excited for it as well as Aladdin. I don't think anyone is expecting them to be better than the originals just to get a nostalgia fix in a new interpretation of the version of a story that they love.


I just find it funny that people keep calling it live action when it doesn't seem like it will be. I guess as long as they go with "realistic" CG instead of cartoony will be enough for the average person to call it live action? I guess you can also argue that many "live action" films are mostly CG so where does one draw the line?

[ProactiveMan]

I guess you can also argue that many "live action" films are mostly CG so where does one draw the line?

That's a good question. You don't tend to think of something like Transformers in the same light as Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but it's more-or-less the same basic concept.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Wasn't there a 1994 jungle book with Jason Scott Lee. I dont know the criteria for the live action remake category but 101 Dalmatians was 1996. Did the 94 jungle book not count for some reason?

That wasn't Disney IIRC. In any case it was not an adaptation of the animated movie- more a strictly book-related movie.

[TurtleWA]

That wasn't Disney IIRC. In any case it was not an adaptation of the animated movie- more a strictly book-related movie.

I understand now. So the Glenn Close Dalmatians was inspired from the previous animated version and the 1994 Jason Lee Jungle Book took from the original novel. Makes sense then why Dalmatians is first like you previously stated. Thanks for clarifying my question.

Yeah the 1994 Jungle Book is Disney.
http://movies.disney.com/the-jungle-book-1994

[Autbot_Benz]

In August Disney is re-releasing the Animated Lion King in the Signature Collection. It will be out August 29th.

http://i.imgur.com/ThKe1EI.jpg

[FredWolfLeonardo]

The 1994 Jungle Book strayed even further from Kipling's books than the 67 film. Yet its called "Rudyard Kiplings: The Jungle Book".

Anyways back on topic, I hope this isn't a shot for shot remake. The Lion King was first created by Disney, and I think it has alot of potential to be done in a new way. I love the first film, but I would like to see somethings fixed in the new film, such as not making Scar lose his sense of class/dignity when he becomes king and better conveying the lesson of the film which is to face up to your past.

[Andrew NDB]

Sounds like they're straying even further:
http://viraldisney.net/confirmed-simba-will-be-gay-in-disneys-upcoming-live-action-lion-king-remake/

[TigerClaw]

Sounds like they're straying even further:
http://viraldisney.net/confirmed-simba-will-be-gay-in-disneys-upcoming-live-action-lion-king-remake/
That was an april fools joke that turned out to be false
http://www.snopes.com/simba-gay-lion-king-remake/

[Spike Spiegel]

It'd make more sense to see them just make T & P an open/out couple. I never saw it as much of a stretch; Nathan Lane (Timon's original VA) is gay.

Doing that to Simba seems a little forced, far more so than with LeFou in the Beauty and the Beast remake.

It's nice to see the original film getting a re-release with new bonus features.

EDIT: Looks like this has been debunked, even though the article Andrew posted was from July 1st rather than April 1st.

[TigerClaw]

It'd make more sense to see them just make T & P an open/out couple. I never saw it as much of a stretch; Nathan Lane (Timon's original VA) is gay.

Doing that to Simba seems a little forced, far more so than with LeFou in the Beauty and the Beast remake.

It's nice to see the original film getting a re-release with new bonus features.

EDIT: Looks like this has been debunked, even though the article Andrew posted was from July 1st rather than April 1st.
If you google search, many sites report it being an april fools joke.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

I'm really hoping this film has Zira even though she wasn't in the first Lion King film, she was one of my favourite villain from the movies, even more than Scar himself.

If this film is successful at the box office (which it most probably will be), they could make a sequel with Zira, Vitani, Nuka and Kovu.

[TigerClaw]

I'm really hoping this film has Zira even though she wasn't in the first Lion King film, she was one of my favourite villain from the movies, even more than Scar himself.

If this film is successful at the box office (which it most probably will be), they could make a sequel with Zira, Vitani, Nuka and Kovu.
It's possible since Disney is also planning a Jungle Book sequel as well.

[ranger_scout]

Beyonce is reportedly in final negotiations to not only star as Nala in the film, but she will also be managing the film’s soundtrack.

“Disney has reportedly agreed to pay a whopping $25 million to secure Beyoncé’s involvement with the project,” the post says. In addition to being the soundtrack’s producer, Bey will also curate and produce “African-inspired” and “tribal” recordings, in addition to producing updated versions of the movie’s beloved songs.

“The soundtrack will be released worldwide through Parkwood Entertainment & Columbia Records (SONY),” says the Beyhive Team.


https://www.vibe.com/2017/07/beyonce-the-lion-king-negotiations/

[ranger_scout]

Chiwetel Ejiofor is in talks to play Scar. I think he's a fantastic choice for the part.

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/876261-chiwetel-ejiofor-in-talks-to-play-scar-in-the-lion-king-live-action-film

[ranger_scout]

Alfre Woodard and John Kani have joined the film as Sarabi and Rafiki.

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/877243-alfre-woodard-to-play-simbas-mother-in-live-action-lion-king

http://www.thewrap.com/john-kani-rafiki-lion-king/

[TigerClaw]

Alfre Woodard and John Kani have joined the film as Sarabi and Rafiki.

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/877243-alfre-woodard-to-play-simbas-mother-in-live-action-lion-king

http://www.thewrap.com/john-kani-rafiki-lion-king/
That's pretty good casting for those two. :)

[Autbot_Benz]

https://i.imgur.com/eubrpw5.jpg

Full Cast released

[Utrommaniac]

Huh...looks like they changed the names of Banzai and Ed. I am okay with this.

There is no replacing James Earl Jones as Mufasa, and they knew it!

[Cure]

Azizi and Kamari. Gaaaaaaaaay.

[sdp]

If done right this movie is going to be huge, unlike the other live action hits to their old movies this one has mass appeal from both sexes and any age.

[Utrommaniac]

I don't know how I didn't notice Beyoncé is Nala.

Does this mean she's doing a cover of Can You Feel the Love Tonight?

[Candy Kappa]

I love the cast

[Shark_Blade]

I expect this to be as good as Jungle Book live action. :)If done right this movie is going to be huge, unlike the other live action hits to their old movies this one has mass appeal from both sexes and any age.

Don't be stupid; all the other live action has mass appeal too.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Hans Zimmer is scoring the film (despite having scored the original).

[sdp]

I expect this to be as good as Jungle Book live action. :)

Don't be stupid; all the other live action has mass appeal too.

You're telling me Beauty and the Beast live action has the same mass appeal than the Lion King will?

[ranger_scout]

People at Cinema Con got to see a special sneak peek of the film. Here are the details.

As for Lion King, it’s shot for shot with the 1994 feature toon, but what a difference real animals (or what looks like real animals) makes. Baby Simba looks great, and there’s a shot of Rafiki rubbing his forehead with red dust and raising him to the other animals. A big cheer from the exhibitor crowd here in the Colosseum at Caesars Palace.

http://deadline.com/2018/04/dumbo-tim-burton-disney-cinemacon-1202375647/

[TigerClaw]

People at Cinema Con got to see a special sneak peek of the film. Here are the details.



http://deadline.com/2018/04/dumbo-tim-burton-disney-cinemacon-1202375647/
I really wish they released the footage. I'm curious to see how the Lions look like. They all have a distinctive look in the original. So I hope they kept that in this remake.

[NinjaPug]

Sounds like the same footage they released at D23 last year

[FredWolfLeonardo]

I expect this to be as good as Jungle Book live action. :)


I think its gonna be even better. I think Jon Faverau's style will work better with something as grand and big as the Lion King. Even the Jungle book 2016 showed Lion King elements, and he managed to do the the film well despite the source material (and the animated film) having a more quiet and mysterious tone in comparison.

I really wish they released the footage. I'm curious to see how the Lions look like. They all have a distinctive look in the original. So I hope they kept that in this remake.

Me too. With that recent Dumbo footage, I really, really hope we get some leaks for this. I'd especially like to see Scar and how they animate "a bad guy" Lion differently from the others while still keeping the whole thing realistic looking.

Hans Zimmer is scoring the film (despite having scored the original).

First, James Earl Jones as Mufasa and Now This? This film is going places!

[sdp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYK6GUWCbPE

"live action" Lion King is all CG and the uncanny valley is strong with this one. I'm still super excited tho.

[Shark_Blade]

Can’t wait.

[TigerClaw]

Here's a side by side comparison.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DspKDHnU0AAUO2N.jpg:small

[Jester]

I like the classic Lion King. I can still watch the classic Lion King. Why do I need a photorealistic CG (this is NOT live action.) version?

[TigerClaw]

I like the classic Lion King. I can still watch the classic Lion King. Why do I need a photorealistic CG (this is NOT live action.) version?
This is some high level CGI. CGI so good. Its like your watching a Nature Documentary in Africa.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Here's a side by side comparison.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DspKDHnU0AAUO2N.jpg:small

They pulled off baby Simba perfectly!

[TigerClaw]

This video shows a side by side comparison.

bx_nNmoyeeo

[XERO]

I hope Simba sings This is Africa.

How's that for a reference?

[Vicky82]

I can't wait to see this :D

[TheBlueTurtle1]

such a pointless film:(

[TheBlueTurtle1]

I can't wait to see this :D

You already seen it! it came out in 1994.

[Vicky82]

You already seen it! it came out in 1994.

Yeah so, and I’m going to see Aladdin next year as well, even though I saw it in 1993/94 (whenever it came out vhs)

[TheBlueTurtle1]

Yeah so, and I’m going to see Aladdin next year as well, even though I saw it in 1993/94 (whenever it came out vhs)

The lion king is my fav movie, this seems SOOOO devoid of any charm, but if you're looking forward to it, fair enough;)

[Shark_Blade]

This and Dumbo are on my to watch list.

[ranger_scout]

Judging from this teaser, Favreau has obviously captured A LOT of the original. The animals and scenery of course look impressive. Even though this film is unnecessary, I will still go see it because it will be a treat to view it on a large screen. Plus, it will be a good way to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the first movie.

This and Dumbo are on my to watch list.

Aladdin isn't?

[Wildcat]

People just like being against stuff because they think it’s the smart thing to do or something.

Somebody could remake a popular movie and it could turn out to be the greatest remake in the history of cinema and there would still be group of naysayers who are against it just to be against it.

Disney’s remakes make most the sense because they’re turning a cartoon “real”. This cgi is beautiful.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

The lion king is my fav movie, this seems SOOOO devoid of any charm, but if you're looking forward to it, fair enough;)


Devoid of charm? You never got that puppy as a child, did you? Because you sound a bit bitter. This OOZES charm! Saw the trailer on Thanksgiving, and it not only seems to have completely captured the heart and look of the original, but the visuals ALONE make it worth a look! It looks fantastic, and an almost frame for frame recapture of the original, from what we've seen. And this cast kind of intrigues me- Mufasa is still Jones, but some interesting names for the rest, can't wait to see how they all sound. Also, that opening.... I still get feels seeing that. This will do as well as Beauty and the Beast, if not better. Guaranteed.

[Wildcat]

The trailer is fine. It’s just the silly bias that people feel is required for updated [title].

You always hear about that charm...is there a Charm setting on nostalgia goggles or does it only switch on for movies made pre-2000? :lol:

[ZariusTwo]

Devoid of charm? You never got that puppy as a child, did you? Because you sound a bit bitter. This OOZES charm! Saw the trailer on Thanksgiving, and it not only seems to have completely captured the heart and look of the original, but the visuals ALONE make it worth a look! It looks fantastic, and an almost frame for frame recapture of the original, from what we've seen. A.

So watch the original then.

And Beauty and the Beast sucked.

[TheBlueTurtle1]

Devoid of charm? You never got that puppy as a child, did you? Because you sound a bit bitter. charm! Saw the trailer on Thanksgiving, and it not only seems to have completely captured the heart and look of the original, but the visuals ALONE make it worth a look! It looks fantastic, and an almost frame for frame recapture of the original, from what we've seen. And this cast kind of intrigues me- Mufasa is still Jones, but some interesting names for the rest, can't wait to see how they all sound. Also, that opening.... I still get feels seeing that. This will do as well as , if not better. Guaranteed.

Beauty and the Beast sucked, This OOZES rehash and LACK of originality. CGI ages, traditional animation rarely does.
I want to see new stories told, not watch some cheap imitations, and so what if Mufasa is still Jones, lol, more than half the dialogue he will say in the movie you have heard before.

THIS IS A CASH GRAB, we're just gonna be seeing these realistic looking animals talking to each other which won't have the same charm that the original had.

[80gmrp]

Beauty and the Beast sucked, This OOZES rehash and LACK of originality. CGI ages, traditional animation rarely does.
I want to see new stories told, not watch some cheap imitations, and so what if Mufasa is still Jones, lol, more than half the dialogue he will say in the movie you have heard before.

THIS IS A CASH GRAB, we're just gonna be seeing these realistic looking animals talking to each other which won't have the same charm that the original had.

I'd honestly have to agree with this on several levels: there are too many reboots in my opinion in general, especially lately. If you feel you absolutely must remake something, make it a remake of something that you loved but didn't do the best in its time. A good example of this is the 90s Steve Martin version of Father of the Bride: I briefly saw the original black and white movie once, and I honestly couldn't finish it.

[Shark_Blade]

Aladdin isn't?

Of course but my expectation is low for that for now. Plus they chicken out from baring Aladdin's chest like in the animated movie so not feeling it much.

[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. :lol: 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.

[Allio]

It just looked “okay.” I can see why people want to see it but I’d it is going to be another BatB remake I’m good.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

So watch the original then.

And Beauty and the Beast sucked.

Well, we all know how impossibly high your standards are, so... relevance here? Also, if BatB LA sucked, what does that say for the original, since it was nearly identical ( save for the added scenes)? Your logic baffles me here. Praise the animated version, but panning the LA when it's THE SAME D@MN MOVIE??!! Inexplicable.


Beauty and the Beast sucked, This OOZES rehash and LACK of originality. CGI ages, traditional animation rarely does.
I want to see new stories told, not watch some cheap imitations, and so what if Mufasa is still Jones, lol, more than half the dialogue he will say in the movie you have heard before.

THIS IS A CASH GRAB, we're just gonna be seeing these realistic looking animals talking to each other which won't have the same charm that the original had.


Ok, so it's a cash grab. SO WHAT?! These are fairy tales that have been rehashed COUNTLESS TIMES BEFORE, so it's not a "new" thing to remake them. But as beautiful as the animated ones were, there is something more magical about seeing your favorite stories "come to life" via LA/CG. You may feel it's unneeded, but so were the animated ones, since the stories are far from new or original. They are fairy tales. (Or in the case of Lion King, Hamlet on the African savannah....)

As for charm, is it any less charming than the "LA"(CG) versions of Jungle Book, Charlotte's Web, Pete's Dragon, or any other talking animal movies? (Babe, anyone?) I feel the realism gives it MORE impact, not less. (Who wouldn't love to have a lion or bear just start talking to them?)

[Candy Kappa]

Trailer did not grab me, I hope they fixes the dull colors before releasing cause it's almost BvS' lack of color. It's especially noticeable when comparing it to the original movie which is rich in color.

[Cure]

No movie is ever needed and everything is a cash grab. People need to learn this.

[Leo656]

I'unno man. I really think this is one of those "Some people just really, REALLY love CGI" kind of things, and if you don't care about that, then you don't care at all.

I. HATE. CGI. So again, while they've already got me to commit, it's begrudgingly, as there really, TRULY is no point outside of, "We push button, make shiny thing."

To go back to my earlier comparison, I've asked many people who claim to love movies why Van Sant's "Psycho" is "a piece of sh*t" but the Disney CGI reboots are so magical. NOBODY can really explain it satisfactorily, which tells me everything I need to know.

Paint-By-Numbers is still just coloring inside someone else's artwork, even if you do an above-average job. If I draw a picture, and you trace over and recolor it, and we both try and sell it, there's something inherently unethical about that. If *I* do it, well... that's somehow a little more absurd, because now I'm selling you the same exact thing twice. But now Malibu Stacy has a new hat, so... that's okay? I'm not sure that's okay.

But, as some have openly said, "Who cares if it's a cash grab?" Who cares, indeed. The answer, being, "Some people, obviously."

I don't think the problem at all is that it's one more of a countless number of reissued fairy tale stories. Like Duckie said, that's nothing new. I think it's more that Disney is now blatantly showing off how little they have to actually do to make people give them money, often years in advance of these films even existing, and it rubs people the wrong way. They can literally Xerox old work, pass it off as new, and make three times as much as they did the first time. It's vulgar.

Like I said, I had a decent time watching "Beauty and the Beast", I absolutely don't hate it but it has NO point in existing, and it doesn't exceed the original in any way. These things are a trifle, a novelty, like anything borne entirely out of a sick fascination with technology usually is. PS4-level CGI might be enough to justify this stuff to some people, but nobody should be yelled at for pointing out that the whole thing is still pointless and creatively bankrupt.

Multiple things can be true at once. The movies can be entertaining AND still be creatively bankrupt, pointless cash-grabs. I feel like people are becoming demonized in recent years simply for not being slavish Disney acolytes, and pointing out that the company has done things it needn't have done, for reasons that are less than noble. Frankly, they've gotten so much money from me that I feel like I can criticize them all I want.

They really win, anyway, because as I said, despite my distaste for the "Why" of it all, it's "Lion King" so I'll see it. As will every single person swearing up and down they won't. That's the real rib of it all; part of why they keep doing these things is because they KNOW it's already in the bag, moaning be damned. Every single person saying "What's the point? This is stupid" is still gonna go see it in theaters - which is wise, because I have a feeling this isn't gonna look half as good on TV as it does in the theater. Y'know, like all CGI stuff. It all ages like grapes left in the sun. Sh*t, for all the money "Avatar" made, nobody even talks about it anymore except to joke about the 8 sequels nobody wants.

It makes me wonder why everyone continues to be awestruck by these things when they all unavoidably look dated 5 minutes after they're out. Yet you still have people insisting "The CGI is what justifies the entire ordeal." Eh. That's an opinion, but questionable. I'unno if anything "justifies" it, but I'll agree that the CGI is the one and only reason to even bother.

Some people simply aren't entranced by putting a shiny HD coat of paint on an old toy that still works just fine. People need to learn this.

[IndigoErth]

Impressive realism on the CGI, I never stop being amazed how far the industry has continued to come over time.

But I'm curious if the animals will actually be speaking or if the dialogue will just be like we are hearing their thoughts. They're realistic enough that it seems odd to make them talk, but on the other hand... the latter would feel like someone shot nature footage and just put dialog on top of it which doesn't feel too exciting.

So far it isn't really grabbing my interest.

[Cure]

blah blah

Sure, but none of that is my point. Saying "it's a cash grab" and calling it unnecessary is retarded because no one needs any movie and every product and piece of entertainment ever made is a cash grab. Dislike a thing all you want, but find better ways of expressing why.

[TigerClaw]

Impressive realism on the CGI, I never stop being amazed how far the industry has continued to come over time.

But I'm curious if the animals will actually be speaking or if the dialogue will just be like we are hearing their thoughts. They're realistic enough that it seems odd to make them talk, but on the other hand... the latter would feel like someone shot nature footage and just put dialog on top of it which doesn't feel too exciting.

So far it isn't really grabbing my interest.
It will probably have the animals speaking. Since the animals did speak in the Jungle Book remake.

[Leo656]

No, I heard you just fine. Essentially, "Why is anything anything?" and "Everyone who disagrees with popular consensus is 'retarded'." Believe me, I definitely got it the first time.

Plenty of people including and besides myself have expressed their views more than reasonably, you seemingly just don't like that they're not as excited as you are about something, and you felt the need to attack them (or, possibly just me) for it. That, to me, is a You Problem; the rest is just people having a conversation.

"Everything is just a cash grab so who cares" is technically true, but also, just a cheap way of avoiding any actual discourse and shutting down the conversation. I find it very hard to believe that your problem lies with people not properly expressing their opinions; people have been fairly clear about why they either do or do not think this is good business or good for the industry as a whole.

I know I personally have been clear: I hate CGI, so "Lookit what we done did wit' it!" doesn't impress me at all in any movie, regardless, so it doesn't impress me here either. It SEEMS - and I could be wrong - that's really the dividing line with the For and Against groups: The "WOW, the shiny!" crowd, and the "So what, it's the exact same movie" crowd. Does it HAVE to be any deeper than that? I don't think it does. It's not a very deep argument, no, but let's be real, there really isn't a lot to say from either side. It's the exact same movie with an upscaling job; the entire conversation is going to be about whether or not that in and of itself deserves giving Disney another two billion dollars. The movie, itself, we've already seen, so all that's left is "What's the point?"

I agree; ultimately, everything is pointless, and that's Life. But that's kind of a nihilist thing to cram in there when people are merely having an exchange of thoughts about a stupid movie. Like yeah, we're aware, people still wanna talk.

It will probably have the animals speaking. Since the animals did speak in the Jungle Book remake.

That's what I assumed as well. It just makes sense, right? Although I could totally see it done the way Indigo described if someone had tried to do this film in the 1980s with live trained animals. :lol: Like "Homeward Bound", but in Africa.

...I'd honestly be a lot more impressed with that. Just sayin'.

[TigerClaw]

Since they look like real lions. Disney isn't going to allow the animators to draw the bits on them. :lol:

[Leo656]

Since they look like real lions. Disney isn't going to allow the animators to draw the bits on them. :lol:

Thank God we finally got the answer to THAT burning question. :lol::lol::lol:

Next Up: Official Disney Verification on whether or not Simba and Nala are related, and how much non-consensual sex she and Scar had during Simba's exile. :lol:

Y'know... the REAL lingering questions we still don't have firm answers to.

[AquaParade]

No, I heard you just fine. Essentially, "Why is anything anything?" and "Everyone who disagrees with popular consensus is 'retarded'." Believe me, I definitely got it the first time.

Plenty of people including and besides myself have expressed their views more than reasonably, you seemingly just don't like that they're not as excited as you are about something, and you felt the need to attack them (or, possibly just me) for it. That, to me, is a You Problem; the rest is just people having a conversation.

"Everything is just a cash grab so who cares" is technically true, but also, just a cheap way of avoiding any actual discourse and shutting down the conversation. I find it very hard to believe that your problem lies with people not properly expressing their opinions; people have been fairly clear about why they either do or do not think this is good business or good for the industry as a whole.

I know I personally have been clear: I hate CGI, so "Lookit what we done did wit' it!" doesn't impress me at all in any movie, regardless, so it doesn't impress me here either. It SEEMS - and I could be wrong - that's really the dividing line with the For and Against groups: The "WOW, the shiny!" crowd, and the "So what, it's the exact same movie" crowd. Does it HAVE to be any deeper than that? I don't think it does. It's not a very deep argument, no, but let's be real, there really isn't a lot to say from either side. It's the exact same movie with an upscaling job; the entire conversation is going to be about whether or not that in and of itself deserves giving Disney another two billion dollars. The movie, itself, we've already seen, so all that's left is "What's the point?"

I agree; ultimately, everything is pointless, and that's Life. But that's kind of a nihilist thing to cram in there when people are merely having an exchange of thoughts about a stupid movie. Like yeah, we're aware, people still wanna talk.



That's what I assumed as well. It just makes sense, right? Although I could totally see it done the way Indigo described if someone had tried to do this film in the 1980s with live trained animals. :lol: Like "Homeward Bound", but in Africa.

...I'd honestly be a lot more impressed with that. Just sayin'.

I think you’re missing his point. Your earlier post was largely centered around the idea that this movie is simply a cash grab and not a meaningful piece of art that we can easily justify being excited for.

He replied with the fact that all big budget films are made with money in mind as the number one goal. We all know there’s a push/pull here but in large part we are all on the same page that most films are “cash grabs”.

The quotes you created at the top of this post don’t represent what he was saying at all.

Just my two cents.

Also, I’m personally interested in a lot of your posts because I find them to be well thought out, even if I don’t always agree, but it’s difficult to see where you are coming from on this one.

You’re digging into the film for being needless/pointless and a “cash grab”, but you’ve already admitted you have a desire to see it - to me that’s the end of story. You want to see it. You want to be entertained by the product. That’s a great justification for the films to exist. If you want to see t even though you’re sure it’s going to suck, than you’re just part of your own problem.

[sdp]

The only live action remakes I've seen from Disney is 101 Dalmatians (when I was a kid) and Cinderella. I enjoyed both enough for what they were, I'm not sure how similar the other ones are but Disney keeping it safe is something that is well known.

I'd hope they'd incorporate some of the stuff from the Lion King expanded universe like the Lion King 1 1/2 retcons or even setting up some characters from The Lion King 2.

I'm excited for this film and Aladdin since i have plenty of nostalgia for them and were my favorite disney films as a kid. I'd hope the story feels similar to the original but I don't want a 1:1 remake either, this short teaser is not enough for me to judge it but I do get a creepy uncanny valley feeling but we'll see how that goes.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

@ Aqua Parade ^ This is exactly how I feel. Cash grab- ok, so what? Does that mean "it will suck"? Um, not unless you just hated the original, because we already know the story, so saying a CG version sucks "just because" is kind of ridiculous. I am not so much excited by "the shiny", as by how it TRANSLATES into said medium, however dated it may be x number of years down the road. Movies about animals that "talk" are hard to do in a "live action" venue. (Or something as close to it as one can get with this kind of story.) So saying it's not needed is just- I dunno, seems counterproductive to its value as a film.

[ranger_scout]

Amazingly, the teaser has already 224 million views in just a short amount of time. That makes it the #2 most-viewed trailer from any studio of all time, trailing only the debut of Avengers: Infinity War (238M views). It wouldn't come as big surprise to me at all should this movie break Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2's record for the highest weekend debut for a film released in July.

https://deadline.com/2018/11/the-lion-king-teaser-is-disneys-biggest-preview-with-more-than-224m-views-1202508371/

[Wildcat]

@ Aqua Parade ^ This is exactly how I feel. Cash grab- ok, so what? Does that mean "it will suck"? Um, not unless you just hated the original, because we already know the story, so saying a CG version sucks "just because" is kind of ridiculous. I am not so much excited by "the shiny", as by how it TRANSLATES into said medium, however dated it may be x number of years down the road. Movies about animals that "talk" are hard to do in a "live action" venue. (Or something as close to it as one can get with this kind of story.) So saying it's not needed is just- I dunno, seems counterproductive to its value as a film.Regardless of this movie, to have such a hatred for CGI is ridiculous. Anyone who truly has 0 appreciation for CGI needs to get photoshop and make anything of decent quality. No preloaded templates/patterns. Something from scratch. I’ve only ever done 2D and honestly I usually used pictures I found.

It quickly becomes obvious a lot of work goes into even average cgi. So choosing to totally discredit one of the majors tools of the trade is just hate. It just is.

As for the Lion King, this discussion is the same for every movie/sequel/reboot. You can quite literally interchange titles to arguments. Maybe it won’t turn out that great but trashing stuff in advance is a separate thing that’s done on purpose.

I absolutely HATE the term cash-grab. I know what it means. People love to label studios as villains who just want to screw us out of money. As if making a movie is so quick and easy.

Sure nostalgia is marketable and popular brands are always used. That does not mean the studio just “churns out” products so we can throw money at them. Some products are cheaply made but that’s a different topic in the overall world of “stuff”. I think you know what I mean.

[TigerClaw]

Regardless of this movie, to have such a hatred for CGI is ridiculous. Anyone who truly has 0 appreciation for CGI needs to get photoshop and make anything of decent quality. No preloaded templates/patterns. Something from scratch. I’ve only ever done 2D and honestly I usually used pictures I found.

It quickly becomes obvious a lot of work goes into even average cgi. So choosing to totally discredit one of the majors tools of the trade is just hate. It just is.

As for the Lion King, this discussion is the same for every movie/sequel/reboot. You can quite literally interchange titles to arguments. Maybe it won’t turn out that great but trashing stuff in advance is a separate thing that’s done on purpose.

I absolutely HATE the term cash-grab. I know what it means. People love to label studios as villains who just want to screw us out of money. As if making a movie is so quick and easy.

Sure nostalgia is marketable and popular brands are always used. That does not mean the studio just “churns out” products so we can throw money at them. Some products are cheaply made but that’s a different topic in the overall world of “stuff”. I think you know what I mean.
Sometimes some products are cheaply made. When the studio has a deadline to meet. Or when the license they have is about to expire. They have to quickly make it before it expires in order to keep it.

[Leo656]

People are so defensive when you imply something they like may have been conceived in sin.

I don't recall seeing anyone saying "This sucks". Just, "you kind of have to be a mark to get SO enthusiastic over something you've already seen JUST because it has a new ribbon on it."

Which is true. Calm the f*ck down, people. If you don't like anyone implying you're blindly-devoted consumer cattle, then don't all rush to suckle Disney's teat for making you pay for something you already own.

Nobody's saying "This sucks", so take that strawman sh*t elsewhere. People are merely pointing out that other people are a little bit too excited for being afforded the "opportunity" to buy the same thing twice.

Again, this (and other threads) are less about what people are actually saying, and 100% about, "You're not as excited as I am about _____, so shut up and go away." No, that's not how any of this works. Nobody's even SAYING what you say they're saying. BUT, they're not doing a f*cking jig alongside you, so they're "a hater". :roll:

Every single thread needs a sub-header that says "No Dissenting Opinions Allowed", because you kids clearly can't handle that kind of thing. I've said this before about other threads: You guys don't want a conversation forum, you simply want an echo chamber. Well, forgive me but I don't play that game.

The reason this place has only 12 people who ever post is because everyone gets gang-jumped if they don't say exactly what everyone else is saying. Be better, or stop even pretending you want "conversation" vs. "everyone to agree with you". That's not even about this specific topic, it's been true of this place for years now. So, just tell the truth: "This is a place where people circle-jerk each other about things we all agree on and attack anyone in groups if they don't agree with The Room." Just come clean about it.

Nobody said your pwecious movie "sucks". They said Disney is greedy and lazy for taking such a paint-by-numbers approach to "new" products (100% True) and that your over-enthusiasm to embrace and reward them for being so greedy and lazy makes you look silly (also 100% True). People are allowed to point out Facts, it doesn't make them bad people.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Speaking only for myself here, but.... Enthusiastic? You bet. Lion King is #2 on my list of top 5 fave Disney movies(and I've seen them all). Right behind BatB. So yes, I'm definitely stoked to see how this looks, and more importantly, how it SOUNDS with the new cast. But have I told anyone to "get lost"? No. Pointed out that some posters' "reasons" for already saying this sucks (ie, by equating it with the LA BatB, which according to them, did suck), are a bit silly, but that's it. Let's face, it, whether it's a cash grab or not, it's still going to be a good movie, simply because we already know how the story goes, and even if you feel "paint by numbers" is lazy, it's hard to screw that up, unless you just don't even TRY to stay in the lines, or are just really bad with colors. But we know they are good at this- they've had plenty of preactice learning what works for these movies, and what doesn't. I honestly don't care how anyone feels about it, but let's not pretend we are a bunch of snobbish art critics razzing an artist "copying" their own work. Heck, even da Vinci did that! But no one complains about that. Because in the end, that's all it is, critisizing them for redoing one of their own works in a different medium or method. Which artists have been doing for hundreds of years. (Michelangelo did two Pietas, as a point of reference- but only one is really famous... Just a little foid for thought.)

[Leo656]

You and I are very different people.

I'm perfectly fine with The Lion King as it is.

I have never asked for an "update". It's perfectly fine as it is. You absolutely can't make it "better" by doing it this way, it's already as close to perfection as Disney ever got or ever will again. And as my Creative Writing teacher always said, "If you can't do it better, just leave it alone."

Said update implicitly says by its very existence, "No, it's not fine. It's Old, therefore Bad. Look! Shiny new stuff! Better now!" Otherwise, they wouldn't bother.

Yes, I'll possibly see it (a lot less enthusiastic now), and it'll be "fine". I still won't have asked for it, and I still didn't want it. And I'll still feel like a sucker for being manipulated into paying for a movie I've already paid for multiple times over.

Be easier if I were single. If it were just me, I'd probably not acknowledge it at all, but the wife won't let me hear the end of it if I don't. This whole thing is just bizarre, to me. I TRULY don't get everyone's CGI fetish, or why they feel it excuses such blatant pandering. But whatever. Have fun.

Nobody said it wouldn't be an entertaining night out, but people shouldn't be demonized for saying Pointless Thing Is Pointless, either. They're just making an observation; how you react to it says nothing about them and everything about you.

[Wildcat]

@Leo656...It’s not about people wanting everyone to agree with them and be equally excited about a movie. It’s that seemly nothing can get any kind of update without some kind of crap or accusations being thrown at it.

It’s hard to put into words but there’s a mental difference behind coming into a discussion just to write off a movie. It’s a different form of motivation. It requires extra effort to actually show you dislike something. That’s how I know people do it on purpose.

You’ve already said you plan to see it. Why do you feel you need to be “against” it at the same time by criticizing it and Disney themselves? It’s like a weird defense where you must remain cynical so you don’t lose your free will or something.

Being interested at all is perfectly fine. Not everything is about studios cash-grabbing us or being lazy.

It’s a movie. A remake/reimagining or whatever you wanna call it 20+ years later that’s really only being done because the technology caught up. Can’t that be it? Why must there be a sinister side to everything?

[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.

[Donatello19]

Things don't aways need to be "updated" because of technology...The Lion King and nearly all of Disney's other movies have stood the test of time. If anyone actually thinks they're doing this one for any other reason than money, you're just lying to yourself.

As much of a train wreck as BATB 2017 was (this is coming from someone whose favorite film of all time is the original) at least it TRIED to do a few different things. At least it was a performance with actual actors. At least it was different enough from the original movie that you could just brush it off and people would know which version you're talking about.

But this? This is literally just a shot by shot remake that looks more realistic with some celebrity voice actors. Typing that out and reading it again just makes me laugh, it's literally the easiest thing they could do to make more money and everyone is falling for it because "ooh, Lion King! I know what that is!".

And all because BATB 2017 had to go and make over a billion dollars at the box office :lol: this isn't going to stop until these remakes stop making big money, and from the looks of it, that's not going to happen anytime soon. I can easily see this making 2 billion and Aladdin will definitely pull around the same as BATB did next year too.

[Wildcat]

There’s no way the movie is a shot by shot remake. The trailer is just a teaser anyway.

As for “live action”. Maybe some of the environments are actually real. Backgrounds, jungles, settings etc. I could be wrong. Not that it matters I guess.

[TheBlueTurtle1]

There’s no way the movie is a shot by shot remake. The trailer is just a teaser anyway.

As for “live action”. Maybe some of the environments are actually real. Backgrounds, jungles, settings etc. I could be wrong. Not that it matters I guess.


The movie is trash and you know it!

[MsMarvelDuckie]

@Leo656...It’s not about people wanting everyone to agree with them and be equally excited about a movie. It’s that seemly nothing can get any kind of update without some kind of crap or accusations being thrown at it.

It’s hard to put into words but there’s a mental difference behind coming into a discussion just to write off a movie. It’s a different form of motivation. It requires extra effort to actually show you dislike something. That’s how I know people do it on purpose.

You’ve already said you plan to see it. Why do you feel you need to be “against” it at the same time by criticizing it and Disney themselves? It’s like a weird defense where you must remain cynical so you don’t lose your free will or something.

Being interested at all is perfectly fine. Not everything is about studios cash-grabbing us or being lazy.

It’s a movie. A remake/reimagining or whatever you wanna call it 20+ years later that’s really only being done because the technology caught up. Can’t that be it? Why must there be a sinister side to everything?


Thank you. This is pretty much how I feel. Yes, the original was fine. Better than fine, it was amazing for itstime- and lest we forget, it used some pretty "shiny" animation techniques too. The close-up to zoom shots in the opening, for one, were done using a new technique for the time. This is, like you said, a remake 20 years later in a different format. But it's not like this is even a "new" idea- they started these with 101 Dalmations, nearly two decades ago! They've been dipping into the "LA" remakes for years now, it just happens that the most recent ones made a s*!t-ton of money, so now everyone feels dirty for going to see them, as if enjoying them somehow makes them feel like they were conned. Instead of just enjoying it as a remake, just like any other (I Am Legend, Day the Earth Stood Still, among others). Did anyone ask for these movies ro be remade? No, but that doesn't mean we can't still appreciate them on their own, whether they are "new" or not.

[ZariusTwo]

they started these with 101 Dalmations, nearly two decades ago! They've been dipping into the "LA" remakes for years nowt.

The live-action 101 Dalmations was a unique example of a remake standing out on it's own and becoming just as definitive as the animation. It being Home Alone but with dogs probably helped too.

[Leo656]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/44/44750019da3b6b845fea4e9e5409fa1d6e9d36219188176e9c 88ea3166470ebe.jpg

[AquaParade]

People keep stating facts like “it’s only made for money!” and “we don’t need it!” as if they are some revolutionary, unpopular opinion.

New flash: we all know these things. It’s an entertainment product. Maybe 1982’s “The Thing” by John Carpenter was only made for the money and unnecessary (it is a remake, after all), but it’s a hell of a film.

There’s nothing I love more than healthy debate, and multiple dissenting opinions being discussed calmly and rationally. I welcome it.

I just think it’s odd to pick “Movie-A” and **** on it for being a merchandising product, when we probably all enjoy films that are made with this equal level of artistic merit. Films that have a lot of hard working people, and maybe a vision in mind, but are first and foremost created and sanitized to make money.

It’s a criticism for a larger discussion, not something to pick on a random movie for and preach it as if nobody ever knew.

I also think it’s disingenuous to imply most people here just can’t handle differing opinions. I think some people are having a hard time with it, but not me.

And so everyone knows where I’m coming from, I hardly have a stake in this film. Other than for the sake of enjoyable discussion, I don’t care if you like it or not.

I love the animated one like everybody else. I’m also a huge fan of traditional animation and have barely seen any Pixar films since Toy Story, because, while I respect the medium, it just doesn’t capture me like the raw, hand drawn animation does. This film looks visually stunning and I’m excited to see and hear it.

Do we need it? Nope.
Is it “unnecessary?” Sure.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :roll:

[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. :tlol:

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. :lol: If people are going to be so defensive in their opinions, they at least need to be consistent with them.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

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. :lol: 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]

"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. :roll:

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. :tcool:

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

[AquaParade]

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. :tcool:

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

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:lol:

As soon as I figure out how, it's yours, and I'll snag Solidus or something 8)

[Leo656]

The last show I worked, I had them announce me and my crew as "hailing from Outer Heaven". :lol: 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!" :lol: 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. :lol:

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

[Candy Kappa]

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 :lol:

[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]

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/lion-king-amy-sedaris-1203036261/

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

[Leo656]

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 :lol:), but it was pretty obviously a cartoon. People are silly. :lol:

[Wildcat]

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 differenceI 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]

Iwonder what people will say when CGI actually reaches perfection.

"Shark still looks fake"

[MsMarvelDuckie]

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 :lol:), but it was pretty obviously a cartoon. People are silly. :lol:


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]

"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.

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.

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 :lol:), but it was pretty obviously a cartoon. People are silly. :lol:
I think some have compared it to "live action". But it never looked that way.
Spirits Within have looked more real to me.

[Leo656]

"Shark still looks fake"

:lol: You are so my hero. :lol::lol::lol:

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. :lol:

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. :lol: 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. :lol:

[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. :lol:

[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/lion-king-screenwriter-nervous-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]

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. :lol: 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.

7TavVZMewpY

[Vicky82]

This trailer looks epic.

7TavVZMewpY

Awesome :D

[neatoman]

This trailer looks epic.

7TavVZMewpY

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]

This trailer looks epic.

7TavVZMewpY


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. :trazz:

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.

[AquaParade]

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

You live dangerously. I like that.

Me next. Avengers Endgame will massively underwhelm audiences, beginning the downward spiral of the MCU. Thanos is revealed to be Tony from another dimension. Kevin Feige plays a powerful alien superhero. With three eyes.

[sdp]

Same movie, new filter. Looks awesome, can't wait. Obviously it won't ever be better than the original but it should give me the nostalgia while giving me something new to watch when it releases.

[Leo656]

Some women and gays are angry about Scar, because he isn't "Sexy, Goth, or Gay Enough." :blanksta:

I wish I was making that up. Truly.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/people-not-happy-scar-live-174452033.html

..........Can that black hole start sucking things up any faster so we can get the hell outta here, please? I've about had enough. Y'all motherf*ckers need Jesus.

[Allio]

I mean they ain’t wrong, but should keep it to themselves

[Wildcat]

Pretty sure those tweets are sarcastic but someone complained they don’t have same facial expression.

I’m sure they’ll show emotion but I don’t think the really exaggerated Disney style would fit. They’re based on real life not anthropomorphic characters.

The CGI is just phenomenal though. It’s like they hired actual animals :lol:

[ranger_scout]

Entertainment Weekly has tons of new photos in next week's issue.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5ADqIJXkAEKw2G.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5AFWYGU4AMHa53.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5AFWZvUYAAnqLJ.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5AFVtsU8AEEO3o.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5AFVpOU0AcRDae.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5AFVrBUwAAF7IG.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5AFVy0UUAAzmAF.jpg

Disney's The Lion King roars again in EW's exclusive photos (https://ew.com/movies/the-lion-king-photos/)

They also got to speak with Favreau, the cast, and the crew.

The Lion King: EW visits the set of Disney’s rule-breaking beast of a remake (https://ew.com/movies/2019/04/25/the-lion-king-cover-story/)

Faverau also spoke about what it was like working with James Earl Jones on this film and why his iconic role of Mufasa could not be done by anyone else in this new adaptation.

The Lion King director recalls James Earl Jones' 'powerful' return as Mufasa (https://ew.com/movies/2019/04/26/the-lion-king-james-earl-jones-mufasa/)

[ranger_scout]

Beyoncé got to meet Nala from the Broadway production at a gala ahead of the remake.

https://thedisneyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Beyonce-Nala-the-lion-king-by-Mason-Poole.jpg

Beyoncé meets Nala from Broadway's The Lion King ahead of Disney remake (https://ew.com/movies/2019/06/19/beyonce-nala-broadway-the-lion-king/)

Plus, this was released earlier this month.

hoGhxfndjpM

Also, a new TV spot featuring "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" was released.

The Lion King: Beyonce and Donald Glover Perform "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" in New TV Spot (https://comicbook.com/movies/2019/06/20/disney-the-lion-king-can-you-feel-the-love-tonight-beyonce-donald-glover/)

[ranger_scout]

Here is a new little teaser featuring "Can You Feel the Love Tonight?"

MaJ6Ir_H2xI

[ranger_scout]

Just in case no one had already seen it, here is the track-list for the film's soundtrack.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D91w7DJVUAMF_xF?format=jpg&name=small

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheDisInsider/status/1143194055519563776

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Happy to see that "Be Prepared" and "He lives in you" are back, thos two are absolute classics.

[Rooish]

Just in case no one had already seen it, here is the track-list for the film's soundtrack.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D91w7DJVUAMF_xF?format=jpg&name=small

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheDisInsider/status/1143194055519563776

Huh. There are a couple pieces from the original score that will be sorely missed. Namely "King of Pride Rock" , which is the amazing piece that plays at the end when Simba climbs Pride Rock. I hope it was just renamed! I'm looking forward to the other pieces though.

[ranger_scout]

Disney released an amazing new featurette where they show the actors in action. Plus, it shows proof that James Earl Jones' voice from the original is not being recycled because there is some new dialogue that we get to hear him say in the studio.

flXkOTJBtvU

Here are some photos of the actors with their characters. I'm surprised that we don't see James Earl Jones with Mufasa.

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-1.jpg?w=768

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-2.jpg?w=768

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-3.jpg?w=768

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-4.jpg?w=768

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-5.jpg?w=768

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-6.jpg?w=768

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-7.jpg?w=768

The Lion King stars come face to face with their characters in new images (https://ew.com/movies/the-lion-king-portraits/?slide=6463141#6463141)

[TigerClaw]

Disney released an amazing new featurette where they show the actors in action. Plus, it shows proof that James Earl Jones' voice from the original is not being recycled because there is some new dialogue that we get to hear him say in the studio.

flXkOTJBtvU

Here are some photos of the actors with their characters. I'm surprised that we don't see James Earl Jones with Mufasa.

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-1.jpg?w=768

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-2.jpg?w=768

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-3.jpg?w=768

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-4.jpg?w=768

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-5.jpg?w=768

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-6.jpg?w=768

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-7.jpg?w=768

The Lion King stars come face to face with their characters in new images (https://ew.com/movies/the-lion-king-portraits/?slide=6463141#6463141)
Those images with the Actors and there characters is missing James Earl Jones. I don't know why.

[ProactiveMan]

"We want to take a photograph of you in profile"
"Why?"
"So we can Photoshop you looking at a cartoon lion and publish it in Vanity Fair"
"... pass."

[ranger_scout]

Disney has announced a new song by Beyoncé and it's titled "Spirit".

"The Lion King: The Gift," an album featuring global artists & steeped in the sounds of Africa, produced & curated by Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, will release 7/19. “Spirit,” the single from the album & soundtrack for The Lion King, will be available tonight. https://smarturl.it/beyoncespirit

https://twitter.com/Disney/status/1148735712696655873

[Shark_Blade]

Tonight?

https://i.imgur.com/GlcMsEx.jpg

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Disney has announced a new song by Beyoncé has been announced and it's titled "Spirit".



https://twitter.com/Disney/status/1148735712696655873

Reminds me of how Jasmine got her own song in the Aladdin remake, "Speechless."

I always like it when there's something new added, so I look forward to when the music video for Spirit comes out.

I'm guessing it might involve Nala trying to convince Simba to go back to his kingdom.

[turtle1237]

Its nothing but one big CGI blue Screen.

[ranger_scout]

Tonight?

https://i.imgur.com/GlcMsEx.jpg

Reminds me of how Jasmine got her own song in the Aladdin remake, "Speechless."

I always like it when there's something new added, so I look forward to when the music video for Spirit comes out.

I'm guessing it might involve Nala trying to convince Simba to go back to his kingdom.

Here it is.

mXblqtzy_tE

[Utrommaniac]

Coulda gotten Beyonce rocking Shadowland, but ok

AA-BUlJ9MSM

Also, yeah, where is King of Pride Rock??? It's easily one of the best parts of the whole soundtrack! Considering how it follows right after The Battle for Pride Rock, I'm going to guess in this soundtrack it's "Remember"

Mbube is what is typically known as "The Lion Sleeps Tonight", which has a pretty wild (http://performingsongwriter.com/lion-sleeps-tonight/) history. (https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/netflix-remastered-the-lions-share-review/)

[Shark_Blade]

Here it is.

mXblqtzy_tE

Cheers. :D

[ranger_scout]

Jon Favreau said the reason why James Earl Jones didn't attend the premiere or was featured in the cast photo is because he lives on the East Coast and he doesn't travel around as much anymore. His participation was geared more towards his performance.

Don't worry, James Earl Jones is fine, says 'Lion King' director Jon Favreau (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2019/07/11/james-earl-jones-doing-fine-says-lion-king-director/1700300001/)

[Vicky82]

Currently 59% on RT, so slightly better than Aladdin's RT score. I wonder if Lion King will have a big audience score too.

[Mr Salk]

I don't know why they bother calling these things live-action when they are all computer-animated. They didn't train a bunch of real lions to act.

[Sumac]

I don't know why they bother calling these things live-action when they are all computer-animated. They didn't train a bunch of real lions to act.
Because they would be forced to admit that it's basically CGI cartoon, which wouldn't be a good look.

[Sugilita]

I don't know why they bother calling these things live-action when they are all computer-animated. They didn't train a bunch of real lions to act.

Would be difficult to train real lions to move lips to give the impression that they are talking. :lol:

[Egon1982]

I knew it, i knew it, The Lion King remake looked like a pointless failure that seems shot to shot like that lousy Psycho remake from the beginning and a bad idea! the reviews are not very good. Here's an example: https://www.indiewire.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-review-2019-1202157153/?fbclid=IwAR2SLf04ja3wp8zWbbjDlZOR8mm_FG7QCxg6NpIg mpVoTvjzjWEE2q_XOAM
(https://www.indiewire.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-review-2019-1202157153/?fbclid=IwAR2SLf04ja3wp8zWbbjDlZOR8mm_FG7QCxg6NpIg mpVoTvjzjWEE2q_XOAM)

Here's a video from the greatest fictional critic ever Jay Sherman.
Don't just boycott the new Little Mermaid film. Boycott all of Disney's live action remakes. That includes The Lion King and Lady and the Tramp.
Because if you contribute to The Lion King being hit, you are not showing Disney anything other than you want more of this crap. Bad reviews won't mean a thing. Disney cares only about the bottom line and pure profit.
Can't we just re-issue the original films Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast and Lion King with some updated remastered animation? as because they still hold up really good to this day, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and Lion King and three of them in my opinion are the best animated films of the 90s among others. We don't need an update, we don't need a live-action remake of Lion King which isn't even live-action, it's CGI. Sometimes like lion King or Beauty and the Beast, Disney can't strike the same lightning in a bottle twice.

I hope the people who saw the trailers to Lion King and didn't like what they saw then speak with your wallet, and if your tired of Disney's lazy halfassed cashgrab remakes of their classics, don't pay to see them and that's how you're gonna send your message. So if you are sick of this lazy crap as much as I am, do not pay to see any of their live action remakes and just contribute to diminishing returns. I have yet to give them a single cent for these casghrab efforts and I will continue to do so. That is the only way they will consider stopping. Because if they keep making money, no matter how bad the word of mouth and reviews are, Disney will not give a damn and keep making them. And if any film of live-action bombs which has happened to Dumbo then Disney will be like "oh wow, i guess people are tired of this! i guess audiences doesn't want this!" and that's how your gonna send your message. Disney will look at the bottomline and it will fall, they will be like "oh wow i guess people are sick of this, let's do other projects and stuff even for Walt Disney animation Studios and Pixar".

I mean you are just gonna get live-action remakes of Pinocchio and all. it's going to happen, i guarantee it and all but eventually the bottom will completely fall out and they are just gonna get diminishing returns, because they are no longer about the ideals that Walt Disney built his company around. They are about greed, power and manipulation of your nostalgia.
If not? That what is the point? There is no need for lazy live action Disney remakes and it is a shame that films like this get the pass and make millions. Like i said, eventually your just gonna get diminishing returns and soon the bottom will eventually fall.

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 from the past (the original Beauty Aladdin and Lion King are delicious and still are delicious), bad Pirates sequels with a upcoming reboot (please let it die already and do something else), sequels to Cars and failed adaptations of parts of their park like Tomorrowland. I want them to do creative things like Zootopia and some others.

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.

Go see Toy Story 4 again (that movie earned my money as Toy Story at least is a franchise that Disney/Pixar built and still going it in a way i feel is more respectful than the remakes of the disney animated classics which are lazy and halfassed, it at least does a unique installment in the franchise), Spider-Man Far from Home (Marvel earned my money there and Avengers which was a great finale to the saga), Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Into the Ashes as those earn your money.

We need to all be like Jay Sherman from The Critic and listen to his immortal brilliant speech which is timeless and look at the video above to see what i mean from him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSWj5_-F9Q4

[Mr Salk]

Would be difficult to train real lions to move lips to give the impression that they are talking. :lol:

Feed them peanut butter. Works for dogs.

[Sugilita]

Feed them peanut butter. Works for dogs.

The people at Disney can try feeding them with peanut butter. :lol:

[FredWolfLeonardo]

I read details about the plot:

There's next to nothing new in this film, aside from slightly more focus on Nala's life as an adult and Scar trying to make Sarabi his queen or something.

Hardly enough to make me want to watch this in theatres.
I mean, I am already let down by the photo-realistic style for reasons stated before, but I was atleast hoping that there would be some significant changes to the story to make things more interesting.

Maybe we could've had a different way that Simba faces his past and triumphs in the end, which was a major gripe that many people had with the original film, or maybe some Lion King 2 characters are shown, and what their lives were like before the events of the sequel.

But nope, this is just the 99% same story, repackaged into a medium that just ends up looking soulless.

I'll be passing on this one.

[Shark_Blade]

I read some stuff about lack of expressions/emotions on the animals too, something they intentionally did.

I’m gonna find out for myself soon.

[Shark_Blade]

Seen it.

Pros
- Amazing photorealistic cgi animals, it’s like watching Animal Planet soap opera.
- The most faithful adaptation based on the original story so far. This is how you remake it without drastically changing it unlike Maleficent (suddenly she’s the good guy?? Wtf??) or adding annoying nonsense baggage to it like Beauty and the Beast (Maurice fleeing from the castle for his dear life but suddenly stopped and stole a rose for Belle, so absurd.... and all about her mom etc so)
- The talking, expressions and emotions are fine. We’ve seen this in Jungle Book before and it still works similarly here.
- Mufasa’s voice is still great and powerful.
- Timon & Pumbaa’s are really funny. Their voices are really good, I really thought they used the same voice actors. Surprised they didn’t, the new guys did a fantastic job.
- When Mufasa died, I was expecting Simba’s tears to roll down his cheeks but that didn’t happen. I suspected it’s because cats do not cry when they’re sad and after I googled, I was right. Amazing attention to detail in realism.

Cons
- “Be Prepared” was changed and not as catchy as the original version.
- Scar’s mane could be blacker but I’m not too fussy about it.

Overall: 9/10

[Zulithe]

I'm seeing it Friday morning. I use a movie subscription service (AMC A-List) and using one of my weekly slots to see it. If I were buying the ticket individually I probably wouldn't go see it honestly. My expectations are not very high.

[Mr Salk]

- When Mufasa died, I was expecting Simba’s tears to roll down his cheeks but that didn’t happen. I suspected it’s because cats do not cry when they’re sad and after I googled, I was right. Amazing attention to detail in realism.


False. Cats don't cry because they are incapable of sadness.

[ranger_scout]

The music video for Beyoncé's new song "Spirit" has debuted.

civgUOommC8

[MsMarvelDuckie]

False. Cats don't cry because they are incapable of sadness.


Not true. Animals, including cats, can become sad and even depressed. They simply express it differently than humans. My own cats are frequently examples of this when we are gone for long periods. They act listless and show little interest in food or playing, they sleep more or pace while meowing loudly for us, they become clingy and overly affectionate when we come back, etc.....

[Shark_Blade]

Box Office: #TheLionKing crossing $100 million overseas

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-lion-king-crossing-100-million-overseas-1225353


Disney's The Lion King is already crossing $100 million at the overseas box office, where it opened midweek in several markets after launching first in China last weekend. It lands in North America Friday following Thursday night previews.

China leads the haul so far with $72.6 million, a solid showing for a family film.

On Wednesday, the Jon Favreau-directed update launched in a handful of other markets, bringing its total to $94.5 million. It posted the second biggest opening day of the year behind Avengers: Endgame in a few markets, including France, where it grossed a big $4.8 million, Australia ($2.9 million), Germany ($2.3 million) and the Netherlands ($1.3 million).

Its opening day was more than double those of Beauty and the Beast and The Jungle Book in France, Germany and South Korea ($2.2 million).

If prerelease tracking is any indication, the Disney tentpole will easily earn between $150 million and $180 million in its North American launch for a global haul of $450 million or more through Sunday. However, look for the film to slow down considerably in China, where it faces tough competition this weekend from a local family film.

The Lion King uses groundbreaking photorealistic CG animation in re-creating the classic 1994 animated film. So far critics are divided, with the movie's current RottenTomatoes score resting at 56 percent. The star-studded voice cast includes Donald Glover, Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, Seth Rogen, Alfre Woodard, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Billy Eichner, John Kani and John Oliver. James Earl Jones reprises his original role as Mufasa.

Outside the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, only three of Disney's live-action titles have opened north of $100 million, including Beauty and the Beast. The Jungle Book debuted to $103.3 million, while Alice In Wonderland started off with $116 million.

The Lion King is roaring into almost every foreign market this weekend, with the exception of Hong Kong (July 25), Japan (Aug. 9) and Italy (Aug. 21).

[ranger_scout]

I'm not all surprised that this video was created. It's very well done.

8ZaAbHeo18g

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Saw it yesterday. This one is now one of my two top "LA" remakes, veeery close second to Beauty and the Beast. It's not beat for beat exact replica, but very close, and the few changes made were fine- though I have two (small) critiquues. One, that Scar's "Be Prepared" scene/number was MUCH truncated and lacked some of the priginal's teeth (pardon the pun), as it made his "army" seem much less of a threat, and underscored his full diabolical scheme with fewer lines. Also,

the hyenas did not do the goosestep "Nazi march" like in the original, which made his true ambitions so much scarier in the animated film.

The second was Rafiki. Was a bit disappointed that he seemed to have a smaller part. As much as I loved him in the original, here he seemed almost an afterthought. Especially with his scene with Simba,

where he did not whack him on the head or give the "past can hurt" advice. The lesson of learning from the past was bot there.

[Shark_Blade]

‘THE LION KING’ has earned $581M in its worldwide box office opening weekend.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lion-king-box-office-roars-record-185m-bow-1225880

More than half a billion just for opening weekend? Legends only.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

‘THE LION KING’ has earned $581M in its worldwide box office opening weekend.

This is incredibly depressing.

[ranger_scout]

Well despite its flaws, I think the movie was worth seeing it in IMAX 3D. That kind of screening made me feel like I was in the jungles of Africa and the fireflies and insects looked especially realistic. It really is the exact same film as the original but with a little less spectacle. They did make a few changes but not big ones:

*Shenzi's role is expanded and she is the leader of the hyenas. She and Nala later have a battle during the climax where they see each other again face-to-face after such a long time.

*Unlike the Broadway musical, where Scar flirts with Nala and wants to make her his Queen, he does it to Sarabi instead. He reveals that he was jealous when she chose Mufasa over him.

*There is a new scene where they show Nala running to get help and Zazu distracts Scar and the hyenas in order to allow her to escape. Zazu is also not Scar's prisoner during the film.

* When Mufasa's spirit appears, we don't see his lion form at all. Only his voice is head and storm clouds move around.

* Timon and Pumbaa actually live with other animals in paradise and they distract the hyenas during the climax by briefly singing "Be Our Guest" instead of doing the hula.

*Rafiki doesn't use his stick until the final battle.


My two best friends and I did have a good time. I'm going back to see it again with my brother and one of my other best friends next week.

'The Lion King' rules and 'Endgame' scores all-time record (https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/lion-king-bites-off-185-million-debut-july-64470388)

[LeotheLateBloomer]

Yeah, I saw it the day it came out. It was pretty bland. I can see why this film got mixed reviews. It's just not very good. It's such a shame how they remade one of the most memorable Disney films and turned it into such a soulless project. Visually it looked beautiful but that's really all it had going for it.

[TigerClaw]

Its nice to see the movie #1 for the 2nd week in a roll. I don't get all the hate its been getting. Its mostly from Youtubers who are complaining that the animals in the movie don't display any kind of emotion. For a movie that's sticking to realism for the animals. They aren't supposed to emote like the cartoon version.

I hope Disney greenlights a sequel. Because they can pull from Lion King 2: Simba's Pride for the next one.

[Shark_Blade]

‘THE LION KING’ is nearing $1B at the worldwide box office and has earned $963M overall following its second weekend in cinemas.

https://variety.com/2019/film/box-office/the-lion-king-international-box-office-nears-billion-dollars-globally-1203282437/

I’ve seen it 3 times now. Simply amazing, bravo! :tlove:

[LeotheLateBloomer]

Its nice to see the movie #1 for the 2nd week in a roll. I don't get all the hate its been getting. Its mostly from Youtubers who are complaining that the animals in the movie don't display any kind of emotion. For a movie that's sticking to realism for the animals. They aren't supposed to emote like the cartoon version.

I hope Disney greenlights a sequel. Because they can pull from Lion King 2: Simba's Pride for the next one.

It's as if any opinion against media that you like are objectively wrong to you.

‘THE LION KING’ is nearing $1B at the worldwide box office and has earned $963M overall following its second weekend in cinemas.

https://variety.com/2019/film/box-office/the-lion-king-international-box-office-nears-billion-dollars-globally-1203282437/

I’ve seen it 3 times now. Simply amazing, bravo! :tlove:

You two never seem to have much to dislike.:lol:

[Shark_Blade]

It's as if any opinion against media that you like are objectively wrong to you.



You two never seem to have much to dislike.:lol:
Just as your opinion means nothing, fact is it’s making money and it’s a huge success.

We are enjoying what we like just as other millions of fans do, not our fault you hate things so much and missing out on life.

Dislike? Well there’s Trump for a start.

Hope Lion King gets a sequel. Kovu ftw!!

[LeotheLateBloomer]

Just as your opinion means nothing, fact is it’s making money and it’s a huge success.

And....?

We are enjoying what we like just as other millions of fans do, not our fault you hate things so much and missing out on life.

Dislike? Well there’s Trump for a start.

Hope Lion King gets a sequel. Kovu ftw!!

As does your opinion (since you love any movie unconditionally) means nothing.

And good for you if you enjoy the movie.

[Leo656]

I love how "Not liking a movie" = "Missing out on life." :lol: That's some bulletproof logic, right there.

Some of my friends are millionaires, and/or occasionally on national TV. Some of them are too busy to make it to the movie theater at all. I'll be sure and tell them that their lives are empty and meaningless because they're too busy drowning in p*ssy to follow current movie trends. :lol:

Aye-yi-yi.

[ZariusTwo]

Just as your opinion means nothing, fact is it’s making money and it’s a huge success.

Box office is no measure or guarantee of quality to an individual with subjective tastes.

not our fault you hate things so much and missing out on life.

"Life" is going out to mingle and having sex. You'll never accomplish that in your lifetime.

Its nice to see the movie #1 for the 2nd week in a roll. I don't get all the hate its been getting. Its mostly from Youtubers who are complaining that the animals in the movie don't display any kind of emotion. For a movie that's sticking to realism for the animals. They aren't supposed to emote like the cartoon version.

That, and it's a souless beat-for-beat remake with unnecessary tweeks and shoddy acting.

I hope Disney greenlights a sequel. Because they can pull from Lion King 2: Simba's Pride for the next one.

Yes, we've now reached a point where some idiots are nostalgic for the Disney direct-to-video horses*it:roll: