Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
The characters are all CG, but aren't the locations live-action? I say leave it where it is.
Keet cleanup
It's also being advertised as a "live action" film even if it...well...isn't.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Its not an All-CGI Cartoon since the CGI its portrayed more realistically.
^^^ The entire thing is CG.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
Unrealistic proportions is not a requirement for the trope All-CGI Cartoon. The medium of the work is computer-generated three-dimensional feature-film length animation.
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
According to John Favreau, there was only a single shot
that had live-action elements in it in the entire film. Despite this, he and Disney seem to be approaching the film as live-action in the promotional material. This also despite the fact they've never actually referred to it as a "live-action" remake, because it technically isn't. It's a weird situation.
For what it's worth, we've labelled Disney's Dinosaur as an animated film in all except namespace. And that film had photo-realistic animals with live-action backgrounds, so it has less animation than the new Lion King.
I've brought this up before but it's still listed under Film.
It's a weird middle ground? It's almost completely CGI and it's not apart of the Disney Live-Action Remakes series, but it's being promoted as live-action.
Seems pretty open-and-shut to me. It's got no significant live action footage in it, it goes in Western Animation. Or in Disney, I suppose, although it always struck me as a little silly that Disney gets its own name space for some reason.
Edited by HighCrate
, which also determined that live-action works by Disney would not be included. So if you see a work in the Disney namespace, you can expect the work to be some sort of animated film.
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
The Original The Lion King is in the Disney namespace.
Then shouldn't it be re-named Disney.The Lion King 2019 or something?
The 2019 film is not eligible for the Disney/ namespace.
I had a dog-themed avatar before it was cool.
I do agree that we're hitting a bit against the limitation of the namespace system with this one, but I would still vote to keep it in Film/ for simplicity's sake, and keep it included in the Disney Live-Action Remakes by default.
IMO it shouldn’t be in Film, since it’s not live-action. It doesn’t matter that it’s realistic CGI; by that logic all movies that are Animesque should be in Anime.
AFAIK, Disney/ is specifically for the Franchise.Disney Animated Canon.
Which, now that I think about it, probably shouldn't be in the Franchise/ namespace since it's explicitly only the Disney theatrical animated movies, thus only covers one namespace.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
FWIW, we've already got two Live Action Adaptations under the /Film namespace: Film.Mowgli and Film.The Jungle Book 2016, even though both movies are mostly CGI and MoCap.
Edited by RoundRobin - Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!
Both of those did at least have a live actor in them. And it's probably not worth it to try to categorize movies with both CGI and live action in them based on how much of each is in the movie, because how do you even count that?
Edit: Hang on, there's actually precedent the other way as well. The Alice Comedies are under Western Animation; they're almost entirely animated cartoons that have a live action person in them. Whereas You Ought to Be in Pictures is under Film- it is mostly live action but the cartoon characters are the focus.
Edited by Kayube
There are certainly edge cases where a compelling argument could be made for putting a work with both extensive live-action and CGI elements in either a live-action or animated namespace.
This does not appear to be an edge case. It is entirely CGI, with no live-action actors and with only a single live-action shot inserted essentially as a goof. Labeling it live-action would be like labeling South Park live-action because they pasted a photograph of Saddam Hussein's head over an animated body.
So, is the verdict approaching that the remake's page should be moved to Western Animation? I think that's where it should be placed.
If we're comparing precedents, I know WesternAnimation.Beowulf 2007 is also under Western Animation.
Yeah, it should probably be moved to WesternAnimation.The Lion King 2019
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
Has been moved to Western Animation.
I had a dog-themed avatar before it was cool.
The upcoming Lion King remake is currently under the Film namespace when the movie is entirely computer generated. Shouldn't it be moved to the Western Animation namespace?