>completely gut everything that made the original Lion King special and powerful because "we have to make everything in this version as realistic as possible, and the original is not realistic."
>the male lions don't have balls
>completely gut everything that made the original Lion King special and powerful because "we have to make everything in this version as realis...
They did the same to the Jungle Book and it worked. Then the Beauty and the Beast and it did well, too. Then Mulan, and people still paid for it. Disney correctly deduces that their audience are a bunch of fawning peter pan syndromed idiots who will slurp up any liquid cinematic turd they shit out and ask for seconds. Ripping everything people liked out of something beloved from their childhood and selling it back to them again at a premium rate is a fantastic business model if the morons keep paying.
The only one that's safe is probably Pocahontas, because of its necessary sympathetic depiction of the English settlers.
Jungle Book is a completely different movie from the original and that's the reason it worked. Lion King remake is like they were aiming for a shot for shot remake but with a mandate for it to be stylistically blind because they don't want the audience to be distracted from how realistic the CG looks.
The other Disney remakes are just crap, especially Beauty and the Beast remake. Good lord that movie makes me almost as angry as Lion King remake. None of these movies have any reason to exist other than to extract money from morons with no taste who think CG looks cool.
Jungle Book remake didn't work, there were just fewer seething millenials to shit on it. The way they raped I Wanna Be Like You goes far beyond what they did with Lion King
>She's the only girl who gives me that sense of...
>Je ne sais quoi?
>I don't know what that means.
Even if you think they're just masquerading as non English speakers whenever Americans are around, that joke still doesn't make sense.
Let's say you think the animals are just masquerading as non English speakers whenever humans are around. Even then, it still wouldn't make sense for the animals to have no idea what their own noises mean.
>Did well
Beauty and the beast was a flop I thought. As was Mulan but because it was only on Disney plus they could keep the real numbers suppressed but all reports were a major flop.
Pretty sure the only reason Little Mermaid is going to pass the sphincter is because there's been too much production and sunk cost already. That started well before COVID.
>Beauty and the beast
>flop
It made over a billion dollars at the box office.
Little Mermaid is going to flop because they fricked up royally when casting the lead actress.
Also they lost the entire Asian market. Ariel is one of their favorite animated characters and she's the reason there are so many redheads in anime. The reactions to the remake's casting on Asian social media in every language has been universally negative. That basically means it will only appeal to a certain demographic in the US, and when Disney movies can't depend on foreign box office, their chances of success are very hit or miss (case in point, Lightyear).
>Beauty and the beast was a flop I thought.
Unfortunately no. I think Dumbo was the first one of the current wave of remakes that flopped, although Cruella, despite being a "prequel" to hypothetical remake of 101 Dalmations also flopped.
This is not even the first wave of live action remakes. In the 90s, Disney remade Jungle Book and 101 Dalmations in live action. Jungle Book is mostly about adult Mowgly and is more of an adventure movie along the lines of The Mummy (same director), and it's pretty decent. as well as remaking a few of their back catalogue live action titles like Homeward Bound, Flubber, The Parent Trap, and That Darn Cat. Of all those remakes The Parent Trap holds up the best. Flubber is alright but that's mostly just because of Robin Williams. Homeward Bound was alright but they cheaped out by not giving the animals animated lip flaps. It was Disney and it wasn't that long before Babe came out, so they had the resources, they just didn't want to spend the money on the CG. That Darned cat is a pretty typical tween-targeted movie.
The one I have not gone into detail about yet is 101 Dalmations because in a lot of ways it's everything wrong with modern Disney remakes, just 2 decades earlier. It was overly modernized whereas the original felt timeless. Despite the movie's extensive use of CG animation, the dogs do not talk at all, which reeks of the "but it's not realistic" bullshit Jon Favreau gave us with Lion King. It never lays out a compelling case for why the original needed a remake and the only thing good about it is Glen Close as Cruella. She is the one thing from the original that was represented perfectly in live action whereas everything else carried over feels superficial and soulless. And they made Roger a video game developer who develops entire AAA video games, graphics and all, from his computer at home, and is constantly moaning about how difficult it is to make a game good enough to attract a publisher. It's dumb.
The "Live action remakes" are all disasters.
The Lion King somehow managed to top it all though, and thank God it's going to endcap this mess with it's failure
>histrionic incels still seething about some CGI remake of a cartoon
who gives a shit
who gives a shit about anything
If you want to be surrounded by updoots only I suggest going to Disney's facebook page.
This is Cinemaphile - Television & Film.
This board is to discuss television and film. Which is what OP is doing.
If you don't care about this, what are you even doing here?
still elitist, still pro monarchy, still anti immigrant, still based
Realistic depictions of the animals that literally lack the capacity for dramatic facial expression.
The first Narnia movie came out 10 years earlier, and Aslan looks way better than any of the lions in the The Lion King remake. He looks regal and god-like and his face always gives the audience a read on what his feelings are.
>Aslan looks way better than any of the lions in the The Lion King remake
pic unrelated
Nah. Aslan is proof that less is more. Lion King has better shaders and fur rendering, but as soon as you see the two of them moving it's obvious that Aslan is the winner. And you know what? Chronicles of Narnia was an animation director doing a live action movie, and Lion King was a live action director making an animated movie. I may be a little biased but I don't think it should be a surprise that Chronicles of Narnia was good and the Lion King remake was shit.
Aslan doesn't look like a real lion to me. His facial expression express meaning and emotion but doesn't look real. This is why the notion of realistic animals doing an emotional scene is flawed from the beginning.
you could just have them express themselves like animals do, with body language instead of minute facial movements. it’s like having a cgi dog movie and focusing on their eye acting instead of having them wag their tails
a horn-bill toucan or a wharthog does not express emotion in a way a human can recognise without an animal psychology degree.
sure they do. when animals are happy you can see it in their buoyant body movement. it doesn’t have to be extremely subtle. you can go to a zoo and tell if an animal is chilled and calm, excited and happy or a little depressed.
I dunno if anyone else has noticed this but animals don't talk. You have to sacrifice believability. You have to either accept that animals speak like humans but have no recognizeable facial language, or accept that they have recognizeable facial language that a real animal would not do. If you are not going to animate the faces with any emotion then you should not have them talk at all.
This is why Scar is the best character in the life-action version. The voice actor is far more subtle with the expression of his emotions and isn't doing a hammy dramatic performance, because a lion cannot do an emotional performance.
He completely ruined Scar's character. None of Scar's dialogue feels like it has any meaning or intention behind it. It feels like every damn character in the movie has autism because they don't communicate with the audience.
The absolute worst was John Oliver though. His acting is almost as bad as his comedy.
I disagree, he sounds like he is suppressing a flood of resentment.
John Oliver is also a better choice for a life action version because he sounds like a hyper active moron and you can at least animate the bird to look agitated.
The rhythm and voice fluctuations Scar makes in the original are all conveying important things about Scar's character. He is actively hostile in the remake and it's obvious that he should have been banished years ago, whereas in the original he hides his resentment behind a veneer of smug playfulness that's absolutely perfect. And no-where is that more apparent than with his interactions with Simba. The audience can tell that he hates and resents Simba, but at the same time, you can see how he hides it from Simba just well enough that Simba loves him and doesn't suspect that anything is wrong.
They changed Scar from a master manipulator to a creepy incel school shooter and I will not forgive them for that.
That is a fair point. But I think this Scar works best with the animation.
In the Aladdin version Jafar was turned into a spiteful beta male.
Everyone’s performance was lacking emotion because the lions had to be hyper-realistic and therefore couldn’t have emotive faces. So they had to match their lines with the stoic, blank expressions the animals were given. A completely stupid decision. You get better performances out of Chuck-E-Cheese puppets.
That, and too many of the actors were either actors who were horrible singers, or singers who were horrible actors (or in John Oliver's case, horrible at everything relating to entertainment). Jon Favreau had this moronic aversion to having separate actors from the singers even where it was necessary and made sense, which is why young Simba sounds like he's on Xanax.
those morons had liam neeson voice him though
so that's one of the voices you immediately reckonise and keeps you from believing it for one second
I do not find any of Liam Neeson's other roles believable because he sounds too much like a lion.
>better shaders and fur rendering
The sculpt itself is much better too. I can't judge the animation because I've never seen Narnia, but the lion on the right looks a bit moronic.
Here's a video of him talking.
Some of the major differences you'll notice with the lions in Lion king is that he's capable of smiling, frowning, moving his brows and a whole bunch of other subtle movements that Jon Favreau said no to in his Lion King remake. Lion King only has lip flaps and it just doesn't work. If their goal was to shoot the movie documentary style they should have gone all the way and had no spoken language in the film at all, because animals don't talk. They don't even give them the lip articulation needed for their lip flaps to be believable so it looks like they're just flapping their jaws.
Wasn't it one of the highest grossing aninated films?
Works with people it seems.
If it makes mullah, why bother
>Is that a movie from my childhood but blander in every single conceivable way?
>I'll take four tickets please!
Why are normalgays like this? Why would any same human being want a live action remake of anything animated when it just means the same shit with none of the style?
They don't really give a shit.
Animated films pretty much exist so parents could keep their drooling kids busy for a few hours. Or just a fun social event.
Nobody gives a shit about the quality, just brand name and production value
Normally true, but in this case it's a bunch of childless millenials who want to relive their childhoods in super realistic 4K furglow. Even if they're more indifferent they're just tempted to watch movies they already like instead of doing a minimal amount of research.
And that's why everyone's already forgotten that Lion King even had a remake and just went back to the original version when they want to watch animated lions.
I took the kids to see it because I thought they would enjoy it as a modern retelling with CGI and all the bells and whistles. The voice actors were stiff, the animation was fricking lifeless and the kids couldn't be bothered. We actually left halfway through because we were all bored. Shant be giving Disney any more money for these.
>I took the kids to see it because I thought they would enjoy it as a modern retelling with CGI and all the bells and whistles.
Don't get the mindset just show them the original.
>Play a random Beyonce song right in the middle of the movies instead of "He Lives in You" which is already in the soundtrack
At least there's this edit
Right looks cuter and more innocent
If you mean "what the frick am I doing here, when do I get chicken nugget" then yeah.
This is why both cartoons and video games will end up badly. Striving towards hyper realism will ruin them both as they will lose all the perks, nuances and intricacies that made them unique and authentic in the first place. That's why Super Mario 64 look more soulful and more like a video game than say Witcher 3 or Watch Dogs or GTA 5 or whatever new modern hyper realistic ray tracing shit you have now. The pursuit of maximization is a giant lie.
>Chiwetel Ejiofor trying not fall asleep while reading his lines
>JEJ trying not to fall over dead while reading his lines
>John Oliver not even trying to act
Top notch casting
I seriously couldn't believe my ears, jones sounded like he was a fricking AI soundboard and every single other actor was like they were doing the worst job they could get away with out of spite or something
Thanks to a tiny blurb in the credits for Obi-Wan we know that they have been using AI for James Earl Jones' voice and probably have been for quite some time. In Lion King they were actually manually chopping up outtakes from the original movie to use in the remake which is just pathetic.
>no behind shots of the female zebra displaying their pussy and donuts
>no shots of zebra balls and big erect zebra wiener
Why even bother?
Wasn't My Little Pony already kind of on its last legs in 2016?
It's sad, the character designers actually were pushing for a more stylized look to the movie but Jon Favreau said no.
That looks like something airbrushed on a van
DUDE PRIDE ROCK