Follow TV Tropes
There's a big difference between adapting a book or comic to film and redoing something already done before.
Especially when you're talking about a film like this, which honestly was tailor made for what it was - animation, where animals can have a bigger range than the frankly very limited range of realistic animals, and something the original film took full advantage of.
I don't want to imagine a photorealistic Timon and Pumbaa, for example. They weren't meant to be a real meerkat and warthog; they were a cartoon meerkat and warthog.
This is something all Hollywood is hung up on, really. All we can do is regurgitate the old. Where will we find this generation's Ghostbusters if we're still hung up on the old one?
The classics should remain classics and not devalued by remakes, while Hollywood busies itself making new films that will someday join the pantheon.
A thing of beauty is a joy forever, after all.
edited 2nd Oct '16 6:09:16 PM by Aldo930
Hey, this year's original Disney film was amazing. They are most emphatically not running out of ideas.
I'm mosly talking about live action, since, well, we're in the live action thread. The animation department seems to be doing okay originality wise, even what with the Frozens 2 and Wreck-It-Ralphs 2.
Live action-wise, however... this year we've had, what, The BFG, which was an adaptation, and to boot, bombed at the box office? And before that, Tomorrowland, which also underperformed? And other than those, it seems mostly we get remakes.
Well, technically The BFG already had been done before by Cosgrove-Hall in the late 80s - so you could count that as a remake if, say, the Tim Burton Charlie And The Chocolate Factory counts as a remake of the good one.
Disney has put out a few non-remakes recently but they're often pretty minor films, not meant to be blockbusters at all.
edited 2nd Oct '16 6:14:46 PM by Aldo930
Oooooh. That, I didn't know.
Oh yeah, the Burton Chocolate Factory sucked eggs. Except for AnnaSophia Robb; it's probably telling that of the actors who played the kids she's the only one you still hear about.
True, but that's something everybody knows, right?
It's a rather flawed movie, but it seems I appreciate it more than most, and I can see what it was trying to do.
I can partly see that too. Too bad it sucks at it.
Back on topic, though... I wonder, were people back in the 90s squeeing about how Glenn Close had been cast as Cruella de Vil?
Not true, Freddie Highmore has gotten a lot of acclaim for his role on Bates Motel as a young Norman Bates.
As far as I remember, no one truly cared too much about 101 Dalmatians around them, one way or another, at least not enough as to rage about Glenn Close. This was a case where the remake actually revitalized the franchise— without that movie, I doubt today the original would get any more aknowleding than The Aristocats.
Lady and the Tramp was a far better Disney Dog Animated Classic than Dalmatians, by the way.
edited 2nd Oct '16 6:26:37 PM by NapoleonDeCheese
Well, you could argue that the remake made people realize how much better the original was.
Eh, I think they were both So Okay, It's Average. Truth be told I always found the original Cruella to be overrated and don't get why everyone seems to love the character. I actually found Jasper and Horace to be better characters because they at least have a solid, understandable motivation (just making money) beyond 'making clothes out of dogs while being as over the top as possible'.
"Over the top as possible" is the exact reason people like her, really.
Yeah, but I've always thought the best Disney villains combine an over the top behavior with an understandable, logical in their own way goal.
Gaston already has everything what he might want in his town, except this girl, so he aims for her. Fair enough from a villainous perspective. Ratigan's plan, on itself, is rather kooky, but it's framed within a sort of cartoony story and still aims for a logical ultimate goal (power and respect). Ursula is as over the top as they come, but she still has something beyond that, she's after ruling the sea. They are all great hams, and they combine that with endgames that make sense within their respective situations.
Cruella... just wants to make herself a coat of dogs. That's it.
Same reason why, blasphemy of blasphemies, Maleficent never impressed me that much. True, she's a perfect 10 in style... but style is all she got. She rocks it, but her motivation still is avenging a slight to her ego. Which would even be okay if she wasn't announcing herself as the mistress of all evil and being feared by everyone. I mean, if you've got that much power to begin with and the good fairies are afraid of taking on you, why are the kingdoms still standing prosper while you stand back. That's excusable if you're a villain who doesn't go around saying they're the ultimate evil. If you're the ultimate evil, then spread that evil around, why is everything looking great in gorgeous Technicolor when you've basically established everyone has basically no chance against you, and you only can lose because of plot fiat? And if you've spent sixteen years looking for this baby, at least don't wait until the freaking final day to send the damn raven out. It took you that long to realize the rest of your minions were total idiots?
I mean, Queen Grimhilde had the excuse of already governing all she overlooked, and we aren't expected to buy her as anything but a conceited human.
So, basically, um, yeah. In my book the top elite of Disney villains combine flamboyance with a logical goal. Yzma can be a twig of a woman Cruella and Maleficent could snap by just driving into her or breathing in her general direction, respectively, but at least her plans make sense.
edited 2nd Oct '16 7:10:58 PM by NapoleonDeCheese
Admittedly all Maleficent has going for her is her general style and the fact that she's unrepentantly evil... And thus why Maleficent, which tried to make her not evil and removed a big part of her character, sucked.
I daresay that's probably the one unambiguously good thing about this Lion King remake... Sure, the all-animal cast makes it a bad subject for live action. Sure, the essential appeal of Timon and Pumbaa, among others, will probably get erased in the transition to photorealism.
But hey, it could always be worse. At least the basic story will be there unaltered.
Only just saw this but
I called it!
I said it right after seeing the Junglebook
The only reason adaptations, sequels, and remakes overshadow original films is because people like them more. They aren't everywhere because Hollywood refuses to stop making them. They're everywhere because people keep paying huge amounts of money to see them. The top ten highest grossing films in 2016 so far are:
Six adaptations, one non-adaptation sequel, and three original ideas - one of which, mind you, made it to the #2 slot. So not only are adaptation films being churned out because people want them, but they also aren't interfering with original ideas either.
They wouldn't keep making them if we didn't want them.
edited 3rd Oct '16 8:05:00 AM by TobiasDrake
Just because people like something a lot doesn't make it a good thing.
it means they will more likely see it
Nor a bad one. Clearly there are a lot of people who DO like them, or at the very least will pay money to see them. And that being so, the studio is therefore going to keep making them, because profit.
Of course, there are also sequels and remakes that bomb, such as the new Ben-Hur or the Independence Day sequel.
I really don't see the point of re-making The Lion King in "live action", though (if you can still call it that when all the characters are gonna have to be CGI). I haven't seen the new The Jungle Book, but I can understand the point of a live action remake there. For one thing, it lets them adapt parts of Kiplings original stories that didn't make it into the animated film. For another, since the lead character is human, he can now be played by a flesh-and-blood actor. And third, having said flesh-and-blood actor interacting with realistic looking CGI animals could drive home the point about Mowgli not really belonging in the animals world in a way that the stylized and athropomorphosized designs from the animated film couldn't. None of that applies to The Lion King, so I'm not really seeing what the change in format is meant to achieve.
Can't guess for certain what the direction will be until the photos or synopsis emerge.
I will point out that despite The Jungle Book remake aiming for "photo-realism", there were still artistic stylization made to them that wasn't just copy-pasting an animal's look. The most noticeable part to me was that many of the animals loosely resembled their voice actors. Bagheera had Ben Kingsley's downturned nose, slick fur resembling baldness, and piercing eyes, Baloo had Bill Murray's sagging cheeks and squinted eyes, and Louie had Christopher Walken's bright blue eyes. It's safe to assume something similar will be done with the Lion King animals.
edited 4th Oct '16 12:31:48 AM by Tuckerscreator
I'd love it if they did something similar to the stage musical, and use elaborate puppetry and costuming on human actors instead of just CGI animals, but there's about a 0% chance of that happening.
(seriously, the musical is gorgeous)
A Live Action Lion King Movie. That is either the dumbest fucking thing to a childhood favorite of mines or a good idea that if done right will be a great alternate version of said classic.
I think its dumb as I question why would they need to make a live action movie if all the characters are animals (most likely CGI). Might as well be a CGI version of Lion King in vein of that Beowulf movie.
However I shouldn't pretend that there aren't any good live action movies out there with a predominantly animal cast. Case in point Babe, Homeward Bound, those prequel Planet of the Apes films and that recent Jungle Book movie.
So honestly this can go either way for me. Probably in the former side as those mentioned movies have human characters in it to some extent where Lion King has none.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?