Live Action Lion King Movie

A review i read sum up why the photo realistic CG animals is a bad decision: The movie want us to believe these animal can talk like human while at the same time reinforced the fact that these animal can't talk cause they are animals.

Really? They couldn't do the part with Rafiki hitting Simba over the head? Wouldn't that be one of the easier things to do?

101 Dalmatians in live action is a great example of how to do it right. Though that one had the advantage it leaned heavily on it's human characters to begin with, so the shift wasn't quite as dramatic.

I haven't seen the live action 101 Dalmatians in years, but I seem to recall it having a lot of dodgy CGI...

It was from the 1990s.

So is Jurassic Park.

I enjoyed it nonetheless. Glenn Close hamming it up really helped.

If I recall correctly, the dogs didn't talk in the 1996 movie. The CGI was just for stunts and crowd scenes, but not intended to make them look anything other than like real dogs.

No, I don't think they talked, though they were obviously Very Intelligent Mute Animals.

Saw a clip on youtube that compared Mufasa's original death to the remake and was not impressed by the remake's.

You know the video of the dog reacting to Mufasa's death in the animated film?

When the remake comes on blu ray, the maker of that video should do an update.

Edited by Brandon on Jul 21st 2019 at 7:23:31 AM

Wait, I just realized something.

Why does “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” have a more lively and expressive photorealistic talking lion in 2005, than this movie has in 2019? (I know the animation is a bit looser and slightly more stylized since it’s a fantasy setting, but that’s makes it work.)

Edited by megaeliz on Jul 23rd 2019 at 2:44:08 PM

Because he's Jesus?

It was one lion and the production had live action elements alongside CGI,so I imagine the reason Aslan looks so good is that they could afford to spread the quality out

If that makes sense

The worst part is that photorealistic animals CAN still be expressive. Look at the Guardians of Ga'hoole movie. Those owls look quite close to real- and they're still extremely expressive:

It's especially frustrating because birds are typically harder to "humanize" than mammals.

Realism isn't failing this story. Disney is.

Edited by Spottedleaf on Jul 24th 2019 at 8:25:40 AM

…The sad thing is, even 25 years later, with a release, re-editions and a remake, Disney still absolutely refuses to credit Tezuka Osamu in any way for the story or characters.

What about giving William Shakespeare credit too!

I'm curious how well this film will do in Japan, considering the Kimba controversy getting more recent attention.

I doubt Japanese audiences care about that.

But I am curious how they'll receive the CGI lions, as Japan in general tends not to be bothered by matters related to the uncanny valley too much, so the lack of facial expressions might not bother them like it did some western audiences.

Edited by MrSeyker on Jul 24th 2019 at 11:34:12 AM

Well, considering the Beauty and the Beast remake made more than $100 million in Japan, you may be right.

TLK seems to be the worst received remake thus far. My Youtube recs is full of videos lambasting it. I haven't watched any but the issue seems to be that it doesn't fix anything or change anything. It doesn't add stuff like the other remakes. It's essentially a one-to-one remake with none of the charm of the original.

How do non-animation fans view it, though? A few people I know, who have never seen the original because they don't like animated films, are interested in it for being photo-realistic.

Edited by Pichu-kun on Jul 24th 2019 at 2:33:56 AM

The movie is making bank and on social media fans of the actors (specially Beyonce) are supporting it.

So the lambasting seems limited to critics and fans of animation.

Ugh I feel disgusted now.

Such people. :/

Honestly, I find this lambasting from fans and critics to be, how should I put this, overblown. Apathy towards it is one thing (I think it’s more appropriate from my experience), but to treat it as the worst thing ever feels like an exaggeration.

For me, it can never replace the original nor harm the original (unlike a canonical sequel) and thus it comes out as an interesting experiment that opens new, potential ideas such as stories (Now I want to see TLK franchise explore the brotherhood of Mufasa and Scar as well as the war between the lions and hyenas) and technology (realistic dinosaur documentaries with feather-accurate raptors and a Tyrannosaurus perhaps).

Perhaps I am an optimist in that regard, but that’s just me as an artist seeing what you can do with the lessons learned from this film.

But are the people at Disney "artists" anymore?

Now your just being silly,of course they are artists