Follow TV Tropes
Yep, it's actually going to happen.
After The Jungle Book made close to a Billion at the box office this year, Disney has now commissioned Jon Favreau to follow up with up.
The Mona Lisa cannot be "repainted", Disney!
They've already repainted one whole gallery of the Louvre and the public's eaten it up.
Of course they'd do it, regardless of whether it makes much sense - it's not taking advantage of live action to do CGI animals on a live landscape, is it?
Hoping that James Earl Jones, Jeremy Irons, and Whoopi Goldberg return to their respective roles.
Is there anything confirming the remake as live-action? I'm not seeing anything saying such on the official Disney announcement.
Perhaps begins the cycle again of bemoaning the remake, declaring the original all perfect, and then the film comes out and it turns out to be fine. I hope so.
IIIIIIT'S THE CIRRRRCCLLLLE, THE CIRCLE OF REMAAAAAAAAKE
Rafiki - Djimon Honsou
Timon - Robert Downey Jr (because Favreau)
Pumbaa - Will Arnett or Seth Rogen
Nala -Scarlett Johannson (because Favreau)
Mufasa - Idris Elba
Scar - Zach Mc Gowan
Zazu - Simon Pegg
Shenzi - Viola Davis
Banzai - Michael Pena
Ed - Nicolas Cage
Sarabi - CH Pounder
edited 1st Oct '16 8:13:17 AM by nervmeister
Is there any particular reason Simba is left off that list? I actually think as casting goes that wouldn't be too bad mind you, just curious.
I'm still undecided. Child Simba can be whatever talented child actor's in the stable at the moment. Adult Simba can be Michael B Jordan, Daniel Radcliffe or, just for the hell of it, Dante Basco.......Actually, just go with Dante Basco. He's one of god's gifts to voice acting.
edited 29th Sep '16 6:06:54 AM by nervmeister
I would normally be apprehensive about this but Jungle Book was f*cking amazing. I have no doubt that Favreau can pull this off.
Well, we all knew this was coming...
I can't imagine this turning out good. Unlike The Jungle Book, which (aside from being following a film that wasn't all that great to begin with) could do an alternate take on a classic novel, there isn't much of an "alternative" path to do with The Lion King. It's already plenty serious, so it doesn't really benefit from a "gritty" reimagining, and the lack of humans means we'll have to try and sympathise with photorealistic CGI animals talking like humans for an entire movie. It's also not a movie that particularly benefits from a visual overhaul — indeed, the prospect of realism inevitably means the characters will be less expressive and, well, less human.
Unless they drastically change the plot of the original, the best case scenario for this I can see is that it's going to be a nostalgia-fuelled carbon copy of the original film. Not something that tickles my fancy.
They'll add human viewpoint characters, further making it closer to Kimba.
Then the Tezuka estate would have actual legal grounds to sue them...
Favreau's posse aside, I will never get tired of hearing Scarlett Johansson's voice.
I agree with Dougsh. There's no way in which I can see this improving upon the original. It's completely unnecessary.
See, the thing is, you're condemning it for the very things others are excited for. A nostalgia-fueled retelling of the original film using photorealistic CGI animals? To me, that just sounds like a fun trip.
Also, they can totally explore different aspects of the source material. The Lion King is not an original story. It's Hamlet as interpreted by Kimba the White Lion.
edited 2nd Oct '16 12:36:51 PM by TobiasDrake
Hamlet, Henry IV, Kimba, and Epic of Sundiata as well. So yeah, I agree there's plenty of new stuff that can be done.
edited 2nd Oct '16 1:31:15 PM by Tuckerscreator
You know what, I'm going to say this, people who claim The Lion King is basically Hamlet have either never read or have a very poor understanding of the play.
The only thing it really has in common are two plot points: main character's uncle kills dad; main character, with help of his father's ghost, faces down and kills uncle. That is it.
Simba does not contemplate committing suicide. He does not consider putting on a play to catch the king's conscience. Most of the characters are alive at the end.
It has more in common with Kimba than Hamlet - and The Lion King plays like the first episode of Kimba gone through the telephone game.
Indeed, hence the video pointing out the closer connections to Henry IV.
Hey, remember when the Disney animators working on the film thought The Lion King was just a ripoff of Bambi?
edited 2nd Oct '16 1:33:29 PM by Tuckerscreator
Tobias - I suppose I'm just not that interested in visuals qua visuals. Having CGI rather than animation doesn't make it any better for me - rather the opposite, as things that work in animation, like "I Just Can't Wait to be King" and all the volcanoes in "Be Prepared", would just look silly in live-action.
After all, one of the best parts of a Disney film is the animation - the hand-drawn tradition at its best. So you take that away - you have to try really hard to compensate for it.
I can imagine this being a nostalgia-fueled, photorealistic CGI remake, but if that's going to be all it is... well, why not just watch the original? After you get past the nostalgia and the CGI, what is there to make it more than the original?
Well, the different plot for one. The press release specifically mentioned Jon Favreau directing, and he preferred to take The Jungle Book's plot in a new direction, so I expect he'll do the same with this film.
If Jon Favreau seems like just another blockbuster director, I suggest watching Chef!, his self-aware ode to the challenge of trying to keep one's passion in their art.
See, even if they're taking the plot in a different direction - it's still Disney. They can't stray too far or else the nostalgia bucks will be gone. The Jungle Book remake still had "The Bare Necessities" and "I Wanna Be Like You," after all. It could have very much not had them.
In the end, if I wanted to see a different version of a story I wouldn't look to a Disney remake. Why should I watch the Jungle Book remake when there's Chuck Jones' old animated versions of "Rikki-Tikki-Tavi" and "The White Seal" out there? If they ever make the Little Mermaid remake, why should I watch that when Universal's doing a version that probably won't be faithful to Andersen, but will definitely not be the Disney version? (And even if that's disappointing there's the Toei version to fall back on.)
edited 2nd Oct '16 2:38:19 PM by Aldo930
I... have to admit I don't have high hopes for this one. It'll either be almost all CGI, which begs the question of why make it live action at all, use real animals, which would be morally questionable, or add a token human or two, which would be stupid.
Though an adaptation of the Taymor show might work...
By that logic, why watch any adaptation? Why watch Iron Man when you can just read Iron Man comics? Why watch the Lord of the Rings films when the books exist? Hell, why read or watch any story when they're all just built on tropes that have existed for eons?
The answer is as it has always been: because it will be interesting to see this new take on it. Nothing is new in storytelling. We just take what's been done before and do it differently. When it works, it works. When it doesn't, we shrug and try again.
And so the reason not to "just watch the original" is because I've seen the original. Now I want to see Jon Favreau's version.
And at this point, it doesn't really sound like you're arguing against this film. It sounds like you're claiming that a remake, adaptation, or otherwise derivative work cannot ever be good. And I strongly disagree.
edited 2nd Oct '16 5:57:20 PM by TobiasDrake
I think my main issue with these things is there will be too many of them to the point of overshadowing new material. Playing off past legacies is fine, to a point, but at times like these it seems it's all Disney is interested on doing, or at least for the most part. Even the Marvel stuff is a string of adaptations of stories already existing in other media.
That's all talent, resources, promotional push and brand name being diverted from new material to forge the company's future. When your generation's main legacy is regurgitaging another generation's own legacy, you have to step back and wonder why you couldn't come up with your own stuff, or at least why you spent more time with inherited stuff rather than your own.
edited 2nd Oct '16 6:04:58 PM by NapoleonDeCheese
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?