Live Action Lion King in the Works

[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.

Originally Posted by Shark_Blade

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]

Originally Posted by TheBlueTurtle1

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?

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

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]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

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]

Originally Posted by TheBlueTurtle1

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]

Originally Posted by ranger_scout

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. 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]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

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.

Originally Posted by TheBlueTurtle1

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]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

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. 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.