DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Chino on November 22, 2018, 04:13:56 PM
-
I know remakes/reboots can get a lot of hate, but I am very excited for this.
https://youtu.be/4CbLXeGSDxg
-
So.......it's exactly the cartoon but realistic looking?
I mean, it's amazing what technology can do now, but.........yea, that felt pretty shot for shot, even if it was just a teaser.
-
I get the live action remakes, but there's basically nothing live action about this. It's just a different form of animation. I'm still excited about it though. I love the Lion King.
-
I get the live action remakes, but there's basically nothing live action about this. It's just a different form of animation. I'm still excited about it though. I love the Lion King.
Also a very good point.
-
It'll do well I bet, but no interest from me. I don't really need to see a realistic animation of this movie. I also hardly watch movies anyway so I'm a hard sell.
-
Oh this movie's making a billion dollars within a month.
-
I wouldn't call it a live remake. It's more of a realistic remake.
-
Looks cool. There are a couple generations of kids that most likely have not seen the Lion King.....and will never sit through the original given how ‘old’ the animation is.
I get the push back against remaking this but, even if it is shot for shot it’s a good movie and it’ll reach a whole new group of kids/young adults.
I’ll go see it.
-
I'm not pushing back. Just kind of a missed opportunity......IF.....it's mostly shot for shot. When you update a movie like this, you have the opportunity to do some interesting stuff. It'd just be a shame if they wasted that opportunity.
-
I'm not pushing back. Just kind of a missed opportunity......IF.....it's mostly shot for shot. When you update a movie like this, you have the opportunity to do some interesting stuff. It'd just be a shame if they wasted that opportunity.
It'll likely be how The Jungle Book was.
-
Well the Jungle Book cartoon was....barely anything. Then they took it and made a much bigger, different, more fleshed out story from it.
The Lion King cartoon is....perfect as is. I dunno what they would really add or change.
Beauty and the Beast is more of what I expect. Shot for shot with a few extra little things on occasion.
-
I haven't seen The Beauty and The Beast remake, nor have I seen much of the cartoon. So, I wouldn't know about it.
I'm excited to see the movie for the realistic approach
-
I'm not pushing back. Just kind of a missed opportunity......IF.....it's mostly shot for shot. When you update a movie like this, you have the opportunity to do some interesting stuff. It'd just be a shame if they wasted that opportunity.
I agree with that. There’s no need for a shot for shot. The scene in the trailer is iconic so I understand they’d want to stick to it pretty close. But I think they could get away with some modifications to the dialogue and scenes and still hit the ‘story’
-
It looks stunning. And I'm sure I'm in the minority when I say this, but if we're not getting Jeremy Irons, I don't want James Earl Jones, if that makes sense.
-
Holy crap this looks amazing!
Doing a little research and Darth Vader is the only returning voice, they re-cast everyone else, and all the comedy-relief characters are white (Poomba, Timon, Zazoo) and everyone else are black. Not sure if they're just re-using his original tracks or he's re-recording them. Dunno why they didn't bring back Jeremy Irons as scar or Whoopi Goldberg as Queen Hyena.
I'm all for ethnic and gender diversity but it seems lately that society is obviously over-compensating for historic prejudices and injustices.
-
As for all the voice actors being black, the characters are essentially all African, so that sort of makes sense. It is weird they would bring back James Earl Jones but none of the other original voice actors.
-
What about Elton John's music?
-
What about Elton John's music?
I was wondering about this too. I hope they don't remake Elton John's songs with another artist.
I'm pretty pumped for this movie.
-
Hans Zimmer is doing the score once again and Elton John is reworking his songs with help from Beyonce.
"Can You Feel the Love Tonight", "Hakuna Matata", "I Just Can't Wait to Be King", and "Circle of Life are all confirmed to be in the movie.
-
I read that "Be Prepared" is the only song not in it.
-
Hans Zimmer is doing the score once again and Elton John is reworking his songs with help from Beyonce.
"Can You Feel the Love Tonight", "Hakuna Matata", "I Just Can't Wait to Be King", and "Circle of Life are all confirmed to be in the movie.
I'll be sad if there's no Be Prepared.
-
I've never seen The Lion King.
Hans Zimmer is doing the score once again and Elton John is reworking his songs with help from Beyonce.
Oh good. If there is one thing Elton John needs, it's help from Beyonce.
-
I've never seen The Lion King.
Hans Zimmer is doing the score once again and Elton John is reworking his songs with help from Beyonce.
Oh good. If there is one thing Elton John needs, it's help from Beyonce.
:lol Yea well maybe he needs someone to hold his G&T.
-
Lion King is the best Disney movie of all time IMO, so this remake has a lot to live up to. I don't expect it to be anywhere near as great, which doesn't mean it cannot be good.
Hans Zimmer is doing the score once again and Elton John is reworking his songs with help from Beyonce.
"Can You Feel the Love Tonight", "Hakuna Matata", "I Just Can't Wait to Be King", and "Circle of Life are all confirmed to be in the movie.
This is a good sign IMO.
-
From the trailer I get the feeling this is more a remastered Lion King in CGI but with new voice actors and not a remake or retelling. Could be a cool thing if the just copy they movie to CGI. Hopefully it's not a 2019 PC Lion King with PETA approval. :P
Now what I wanna see is a real LIVE action movie, meaning with real animals. Now THAT would have been something too see especially the behind the scenes. :lol
-
Now what I wanna see is a real LIVE action movie, meaning with real animals. Now THAT would have been something too see especially the behind the scenes. :lol
Just watch yesterday's episode of Dynasties from BBC. Interesting behind the scenes and all.
(example clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtBTPT8qtgE )
-
Hans Zimmer is doing the score once again and Elton John is reworking his songs with help from Beyonce.
"Can You Feel the Love Tonight", "Hakuna Matata", "I Just Can't Wait to Be King", and "Circle of Life are all confirmed to be in the movie.
I'll be sad if there's no Be Prepared.
People on r/movies on Reddit are saying that this song will not be included in the sound track. I'm not sure if that's a fact or not, but it will be a bummer if that's the case. It's my favorite song off the sound track.
-
Yep easily the best song.....that sucks
-
Looks cool. There are a couple generations of kids that most likely have not seen the Lion King.....and will never sit through the original given how ‘old’ the animation is.
I doubt that very seriously.
-
Looks cool. There are a couple generations of kids that most likely have not seen the Lion King.....and will never sit through the original given how ‘old’ the animation is.
I doubt that very seriously.
Which part? The 'couple generations' or that the current generation of younglings wouldn't sit through the original Lion King?
-
I think the number of kids who won’t watch the original, but that would watch the remake is very very small.
I hope at least.
-
Gary's right. We had people over two weekends ago, several of which were young-ish mothers with kids in the 1-5 year range. We were on the topic of what kinds of movies kids watch today, and all but one said their kids don't want to watch the old movies. They want to watch the Toy Stories the new Beauty and the Beast instead.
You know, part of me wants to get on about how much of a bummer that is, but as a child, and I guess even now as an adult, I just won't watch black and white movies. I think I've seen two in my entire life (Schindler's List and Refer Madness). As a kid, I just couldn't wrap my head around watching black and white when color was available. It's why no one touched their Gameboy Pocket again once the Color came out. My brain wanted the color. I enjoyed the color. I wouldn't be surprised if the brains of the kids today sort of crave the new-age 3D animations over the flat stuff we had.
-
Yea, as a kid I had no interest in watching older movies.
-
I think the number of kids who won’t watch the original, but that would watch the remake is very very small.
I think the complete opposite as you, Adami (NO WAY!)
-
I think the number of kids who won’t watch the original, but that would watch the remake is very very small.
I think the complete opposite as you, Adami (NO WAY!)
Let me be hopeful!
I guess I just find it sad, is all. But then I remembered I have a 25 year old coworker who won't watch movies before the year 2000 (In general, not 100%). It's just.......sad, to me.
-
I agree, except I don't think the issue is how old something is. It is more about what is the newest version. We are a culture that needs a new iPhone every time one gets released. If there are two versions of a movie, why would anyone want to watch the older one?
-
I have an 8, 11 and 12 year old and they are completely spoiled when it comes to the era their growing up in concerning animation/video games etc. It’s infinitely better than even 10 years ago. My comment about kids not seeing the old lion king or even being able to sit through it is based off of there’s little chance that it would hold their attention. It’s simply ‘boring’ to watch when it comes to the animation. I’ve seen it first hand when we’ve come across old cartoons or tv show I used to watch.....they can’t make it 5 minutes.
Heck, when we watched ‘Attack of the Clones’ my middle son literally laughed out loud at the animation and CGI. That was top notch stuff when it was released and they laughed at how bad it is compared to what they are seeing today.
-
I agree, except I don't think the issue is how old something is. It is more about what is the newest version. We are a culture that needs a new iPhone every time one gets released. If there are two versions of a movie, why would anyone want to watch the older one?
Yeah, but I don't think a 3 year old is thinking "I like the new Beauty and the Beast because it's newer". I think there are chemical differences in the brain when looking at the original hand drawn movie and the one that came out a few years ago. The brain is chemically craving the newer one because it lights up many more sections of it.
-
Heck, when we watched ‘Attack of the Clones’ my middle son literally laughed out loud at the animation and CGI.
So did I.
A 3 year old will watch what they are exposed to. If there is a little kid that won't watch cartoons, especially Disney cartoons, that's because of their parents, not the kids. And for that matter, half of them are exposed to Disney stuff pretty regularly, through the Disney Channel.
My kids are older now, but they have always loved all of the older Disney animated films. Little kids don't know they are "old", they would only know that they haven't seen it yet.
-
Heck, when we watched ‘Attack of the Clones’ my middle son literally laughed out loud at the animation and CGI.
So did I.
A 3 year old will watch what they are exposed to. If there is a little kid that won't watch cartoons, especially Disney cartoons, that's because of their parents, not the kids. And for that matter, half of them are exposed to Disney stuff pretty regularly, through the Disney Channel.
My kids are older now, but they have always loved all of the older Disney animated films. Little kids don't know they are "old", they would only know that they haven't seen it yet.
My kids grew up on the Disney Channel. Even the ‘lesser’ animated series in there were/are better than the original Lion King animation.
I’m not sure what your trying to argue here? Brian hinted to the science behind it and just in general the ‘old’ animation simply doesn’t capture a kids attentuon compared to the modern day stuff. Put them side by side and current technology will win every time and my bet is that’s what Disney is banking on. The crop of young kids who ignored the original Lion Kimg because it didn’t interest them. If their parents didn’t show them that movie it’s bexauwe they knew their kids would watch it for 5 minutes and give up on it.
There kids will watch the entirety of this new one simply based on the visuals.
-
This movie looks amazing with a great director. Who cares if it's a reboot? The Jungle Book was amazing as well.
-
This movie looks amazing with a great director. Who cares if it's a reboot? The Jungle Book was amazing as well.
This!
Man even Dumbo looks GREAT!!! I could never watch the original completely because those pink elephants that terrorized me. But I am sure I will have a blast with my older son
-
This movie looks amazing with a great director. Who cares if it's a reboot? The Jungle Book was amazing as well.
I don't care if it's a reboot, that's fine for others who really want to see this. I just don't have interest in throwing money at this since it seems to be too much of the same to want to pay to see it. Now, the more I think about it though, I totally would watch it for free when it makes it's way to TV or HBO or something. Also, having a similar but reworked score makes it interesting to me. Movie music really never makes or break a movie for me, but the score on this movie was really awesome though and IMO a big role on the popularity of the movie.
-
I’m not sure what your trying to argue here?
I'm not arguing at all. I'm just baffled at your position.
Like I said, my kids are older now, so I figured (given what you are espousing) that maybe I'm just out of my mind. So I asked multiple co-workers who have kids in what I figured are the target Disney demographic (3-10), and all of them pretty much agreed with me - all of their kids love the original Lion King, and all of the other Disney films of that era. They all seem mystified when I suggested that they may have gone out of style with kids.
So I don't know. *shrugs*
Brian hinted to the science behind it
With all respect to Brian, he didn't hint at any science behind it. He speculated about something.
I think there are chemical differences in the brain when looking at the original hand drawn movie and the one that came out a few years ago. The brain is chemically craving the newer one because it lights up many more sections of it.
Him saying that isn't "science".
-
Back in 2009 or so, I was living with my ex-fiance (not ex at the time) and her 3-4 year old daughter. The daughter loved the current stuff (back then) but also loved all the classic stuff. Because we showed it to her.
-
but also loved all the classic stuff. Because we showed it to her.
I think that's the key. Plop your kids in front of the TV to choose what they want and they'll probably default to newer stuff. Watch your favorites with them and they'll probably become their favorites too.
-
Hell, we got her to LOVE a bootleg recording of Mr. Boogedy. A terrible children's Halloween movie from the 80's. If a kid can love THAT movie? Then they can love whatever.
-
So I don't know. *shrugs*
Nor do I.....the sample of kids I'm familiar with (mine, nieces/nephews and friends) would seem to support my thought....which is why I suggested it.
-
Hell, we got her to LOVE a bootleg recording of Mr. Boogedy. A terrible children's Halloween movie from the 80's. If a kid can love THAT movie? Then they can love whatever.
what about the sequel, "Bride of Boogedy"?
-
Hell, we got her to LOVE a bootleg recording of Mr. Boogedy. A terrible children's Halloween movie from the 80's. If a kid can love THAT movie? Then they can love whatever.
what about the sequel, "Bride of Boogedy"?
That one too!
-
my 7 year old and 9 year old love all the old animated movies. Heck, they ask me to get out my old Looney Tunes collections all the time to watch those.
-
Consider me on-board the hype train.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TavVZMewpY&feature=push-u-sub&attr_tag=RIZYnKIapxsHeUsV%3A6
-
Me too. That looks wonderful.
-
Ehhhhhh. It LOOKS insanely amazing. But it also....looks exactly like the original. Like....exactly.
-
Ehhhhhh. It LOOKS insanely amazing. But it also....looks exactly like the original. Like....exactly.
I think that was the point. If they changed it up too much, the world would have grabbed their pitchforks and accused them of changing a classic.
-
Eh. I dunno. Seems artistically empty then. But I’m sure it’ll be fine and make over a billion.
-
Ehhhhhh. It LOOKS insanely amazing. But it also....looks exactly like the original. Like....exactly.
This. I see no point to this.
Or, frankly, to the entire line of "real-life" adaptations of classic Disney animation.
-
Ehhhhhh. It LOOKS insanely amazing. But it also....looks exactly like the original. Like....exactly.
This. I see no point to this.
Or, frankly, to the entire line of "real-life" adaptations of classic Disney animation.
Kids today want to see realistic CGI over hand-drawn cartoons. I don't get why that's so hard to understand. Plus Disney wants to make money, as it's the entire point of them existing. When I was a kid, there was nothing you could say or do to convince me to watch the old black and white mickey mouse cartoons. I imagine it's the the same thing today, just with the next generation of children's entertainment.
-
And I get that. I do. Though it seems....flimsy. It's not like kids only watch photo realistic stuff like this....it barely exists! Also, why not remake every single cartoon ever then? Why just these specific ones?
And why not just do something original with this tech instead? I doubt too many kids are like "man...I REALLY want to watch Lion King, but the animation isn't state of the art...so I just cannot physically watch it...dammit!." If anything, they just don't care. So why not do an original story with this stuff for the new generation? To me, movies (ideally) are also about artistic expression. They're not JUST a means of technology showing off. This movie is just a means of showing off technology right now. It doesn't do anything artistic at all (from what i can see in the trailers). So again, tech is very cool. Tell an original story instead. Kids will like that too if it's done well.
-
Kids like Disney movies. Disney likes money. 90s-born kids like myself also like Disney movies. 90s kids like me also have a turgid hardon for remakes of things from their childhood, video games, television, cinema, you name it, we more or less eat it up.
Yeah they could do something original with the tech, yeah they could remake other things, but it's the smartest and safest way for them to make money and get a good reaction from audiences who know they're going in to see something they already know they're fond of. Plus the advertising is easy. It's all easy. Except actually making the effects, I guess.
Personally I couldn't care less about the behind-the-scenes stuff; yeah film is about artistic expression, but Star Wars is all artistic expression and it's a big bag of farts. I just wanna see animals stampeding in the Pride Lands, man. :hat
EDIT: I also wonder how kids today respond to those traditionally animated films, and how well a child can grasp all the detail in something like, say, this Lion King remake. Part of the originals' charm is the simplicity of the animation and the vibrancy of the colors, the exaggerated facial expressions and body movements. I remember being a child and actually not enjoying the live action Disney movies, or live action animal movies like Jurassic Park. I much preferred animation. But I'm sure there's a strong portion of children that would lose their minds watching stuff like this remake. I'd like to read about that...
-
Why just these specific ones?
And why not just do something original with this tech instead?
Because they can save money on using a pre-existing story and not having to reinvent the wheel. This type of animation isn't cheap by any means. Their view of risk is very low. And by using something that was already a success, it still manages to get a childless thirty year old like myself excited for this, whereas an entirely new story probably wouldn't.
-
Exactly. It's not an artistic movie at all then. It's a display of technology and a means of making money. Obviously this isn't the only movie to do that, but I thought little of the other ones as well. I'll continue to not have much respect for this movie either, aside from the animators who are blowing me away.
-
Why just these specific ones?
And why not just do something original with this tech instead?
Because they can save money on using a pre-existing story and not having to reinvent the wheel. This type of animation isn't cheap by any means. Their view of risk is very low. And by using something that was already a success, it still manages to get a childless thirty year old like myself excited for this, whereas an entirely new story probably wouldn't.
I don't know that it's about "saving money" as opposed to just having a proven winner that they can remake. They know the story works. And they know the Lion King "brand" alone will sell it because people know what it is. Yes, it does save money to use a pre-existing story. But it's not about that.
EDIT: And about the movie itself, there is nothing about this idea that makes me want to see it. But I probably will at some point. I felt the same way about The Jungle Book. No interest whatsoever. But I saw it. And I unexpectedly loved it. I would not be shocked if I loved this as well.
-
Exactly. It's not an artistic movie at all then. It's a display of technology and a means of making money. Obviously this isn't the only movie to do that, but I thought little of the other ones as well. I'll continue to not have much respect for this movie either, aside from the animators who are blowing me away.
So what? When I see a movie, I don't grade it with an artistic rubric. Was I entertained - yes or no? That's all that matters. Across the Universe was artistic as hell and it was shit.
-
Exactly. It's not an artistic movie at all then. It's a display of technology and a means of making money. Obviously this isn't the only movie to do that, but I thought little of the other ones as well. I'll continue to not have much respect for this movie either, aside from the animators who are blowing me away.
Respectfully, isn't that a bit much? You yourself have been reviewing Marvel movies which are often ripped straight out of their comics and not using entirely original stories either.
Just because the story is the same and the shots are recreations of iconic shots from the film (as they should be, imo), doesn't mean it isn't artistic. It absolutely is still artistic. You have all kinds of elements you don't have to think about in animation. You have real lighting, environments, photography, set pieces, and all new technology. The intent behind the originals was to make money, too, mind.
-
Exactly. It's not an artistic movie at all then. It's a display of technology and a means of making money. Obviously this isn't the only movie to do that, but I thought little of the other ones as well. I'll continue to not have much respect for this movie either, aside from the animators who are blowing me away.
So what? When I see a movie, I don't grade it with an artistic rubric. Was I entertained - yes or no? That's all that matters. Across the Universe was artistic as hell and it was shit.
That's you. That's cool. It's also most people. That's cool. Like I said, I doubt it'll be a bad movie. After all it's just redoing a great one. It'll obviously make over a billion dollars, showing that most people will love it. I just won't think very much of it. I will probably lump THIS version of it with things like the Transformers movies.
-
Exactly. It's not an artistic movie at all then. It's a display of technology and a means of making money. Obviously this isn't the only movie to do that, but I thought little of the other ones as well. I'll continue to not have much respect for this movie either, aside from the animators who are blowing me away.
Respectfully, isn't that a bit much? You yourself have been reviewing Marvel movies which are often ripped straight out of their comics and not using entirely original stories either.
Just because the story is the same and the shots are recreations of iconic shots from the film (as they should be, imo), doesn't mean it isn't artistic. It absolutely is still artistic. You have all kinds of elements you don't have to think about in animation. You have real lighting, environments, photography, set pieces, and all new technology. The intent behind the originals was to make money, too, mind.
There are technical elements. No doubt. Very very respectful of those. But a movie, to me, is more than the technical achievements.
And Marvel adapting comic books is one form of medium adapting another. Redoing something in the same medium is quite different. If they re-did Iron Man, the movie, with new people and better FX but it was the same movie, I'd also have little respect for it.
-
But even though it's the same medium, there is a massive difference between a live version of a film and an animated one. And all that new technology is part of the artistic process. I think you just are peering more into the business back-end of things here as opposed to the original, because again, the original was intended to make money, too, as every product a company puts out is expected to - that's no surprise. But it's definitely still an artistic feat, brother. I guess I just don't understand the loss of respect thing because that seems to be quite a powerful reaction to this.
-
It's not live action. It's animated. It just had some physical green screens and a motion capture. It's a new form of animated.
-
I get that, tons of CGI and effects, but it's not animated, so I don't know what else to call it. There's real locations and stuff (... right?) so I'm going with that. Still, my point remains. I don't get the loss of respect thing, but I totally understand not digging the style. :P
-
I get that, tons of CGI and effects, but it's not animated, so I don't know what else to call it. There's real locations and stuff so I'm going with that. Still, my point remains. :P
Technical stuff. All cool and very respectful. But not the kind of art or artistic vision I am talking about. Maybe I'm using the wrong word, but it's fine.
-
It's not live action. It's animated. It just had some physical green screens and a motion capture. It's a new form of animated.
But we're reaching a point where those two ways of creating a movie are becoming one in the same. It's no longer just capturing basic body movements. Facial expressions and the smallest nuances of the actors and actresses comes through in the final product.
(https://i.gifer.com/VPuK.gif)
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/vOL4CB6JfQGI0/giphy.gif?cid=790b76115cae381c5374384b518dada2)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/Jes7fbs9YqeuQ/giphy.gif)
-
A fair point, but not my major point.
-
Ehhhhhh. It LOOKS insanely amazing. But it also....looks exactly like the original. Like....exactly.
This. I see no point to this.
Or, frankly, to the entire line of "real-life" adaptations of classic Disney animation.
Yea, I agree for me. I understand there's a market for it so I do see the point, but I have little interest in watching a remake that doesn't really change anything to the story just the presentation.
And I know it's more than just animation, but the live action doesn't make it look more interesting to me, it just feels like a money grab and money it will grab.
My gf asked me if I ever saw the Lion King and internally I start saying to myself, "damn she's going to want to see the remake, ok it's not the worse thing ever I'd probably enjoy it but I just dont want to spend money on it, but ok lets see where this goes.." and it went into a rant from her about remakes and live action not being interesting which made me smike and then think internally "thats my girl" :lol
-
Ehhhhhh. It LOOKS insanely amazing. But it also....looks exactly like the original. Like....exactly.
I think that was the point. If they changed it up too much, the world would have grabbed their pitchforks and accused them of changing a classic.
That was a very important thing for me, the original movie was movie magic for me as a kid since I saw it in the theaters back in the day. For me this seems like a tribute to the original movie and I love the idea of doing an animated classic into state of the art CGI and change nothing because it's a classic for a reason.
This looks incredible, one of the best CGI cinematic i've seen.
-
Lump me in with the "has no interest whatsoever to see this film" camp. Yeah, the special effects look great and ridiculously detailed, but I don't know...it really lacks the same expressive nature the original had. Part of what made that film so fun to watch was how incredibly well the animators were able to give human-like characteristics to these animals. In this one, it kind of just looks like lions flapping their mouths about, at least from what we've seen so far.
I know regardless this film will make major bank and people will be raving about it till the cows come home, but it's just not my thing.
-
I'm going, just like I would buy a remastered album I loved in the 90s.
-
I’m pretty damn excited as the lion king was my favorite movie growing up
-
With the original movie I cried a LOT when Mufasa died, does Disney plans on me watching that again? Hell yes, I'll be there
-
Ehhhhhh. It LOOKS insanely amazing. But it also....looks exactly like the original. Like....exactly.
This. I see no point to this.
Or, frankly, to the entire line of "real-life" adaptations of classic Disney animation.
Let me add something here.
Part of my problem is not the recreations of classics as such, although I do find it a little distasteful.
It also seems that these are the only real films that Disney is in the business of making these days (not counting their acquired interests such as Marvel, Pixar, or Lucasfilm). Where is this year's Lion King or Aladdin (meaning, original films that took the world by storm)? They are apparently just remakes of the old Lion King and Aladdin.
Here is the rest of their release schedule for the year.
Penguins (Disneynature) – April 17 - basically a documentary.
Avengers: Endgame – April 26 - Marvel.
Aladdin – May 24 - remake of a classic.
Toy Story 4 – June 21 - Pixar.
The Lion King – July 19 - remake of a classic.
Artemis Fowl – August 9 - Disney original
Frozen 2 – November 22 - Disney original
Star Wars: Episode IX – December 20 - Lucasfilm.
Frozen 2 is understandable, and Artemis Fowl is apparently an adaptation of some books. I don't know, but if you discount the releases by their acquired companies and their remakes, the release calendar seems substandard by the lofty heights that Disney has set for itself. For my personal tastes, I would much rather they make a couple of new original films that could blow us away, like they used to. Regardless of what Chino says about what kids want, the fact is that Disney is going to be making money off of the original versions of those films for decades to come.
And as usual, I don't really expect anyone else to look at this like I do lol
-
Artemis Fowl was a popular book series back in the day following the initial Harry Potter craze. I owned the first three, never read beyond that. Like Harry Potter but an even lighter version of it, with fairies and such.
-
Ehhhhhh. It LOOKS insanely amazing. But it also....looks exactly like the original. Like....exactly.
This. I see no point to this.
Or, frankly, to the entire line of "real-life" adaptations of classic Disney animation.
Let me add something here.
Part of my problem is not the recreations of classics as such, although I do find it a little distasteful.
It also seems that these are the only real films that Disney is in the business of making these days (not counting their acquired interests such as Marvel, Pixar, or Lucasfilm). Where is this year's Lion King or Aladdin (meaning, original films that took the world by storm)? They are apparently just remakes of the old Lion King and Aladdin.
Here is the rest of their release schedule for the year.
Penguins (Disneynature) – April 17 - basically a documentary.
Avengers: Endgame – April 26 - Marvel.
Aladdin – May 24 - remake of a classic.
Toy Story 4 – June 21 - Pixar.
The Lion King – July 19 - remake of a classic.
Artemis Fowl – August 9 - Disney original
Frozen 2 – November 22 - Disney original
Star Wars: Episode IX – December 20 - Lucasfilm.
Frozen 2 is understandable, and Artemis Fowl is apparently an adaptation of some books. I don't know, but if you discount the releases by their acquired companies and their remakes, the release calendar seems substandard by the lofty heights that Disney has set for itself. For my personal tastes, I would much rather they make a couple of new original films that could blow us away, like they used to. Regardless of what Chino says about what kids want, the fact is that Disney is going to be making money off of the original versions of those films for decades to come.
And as usual, I don't really expect anyone else to look at this like I do lol
They have maleficent 2
Spiderman
-
They have maleficent 2
Spiderman
I missed Maleficent 2, but again, it's a sequel.
They don't have Spider-Man. That's from Sony, not Disney or Marvel.
-
Exactly. It's not an artistic movie at all then. It's a display of technology and a means of making money. Obviously this isn't the only movie to do that, but I thought little of the other ones as well. I'll continue to not have much respect for this movie either, aside from the animators who are blowing me away.
... but isn't everyone always asking for a re-do of When Dream and Day Unite with current technology and lineup?
It's equal parts artistic and money-making and I'm on-board with it. I hope they do the entire back catalog of 2D movies using current technology.
-
Exactly. It's not an artistic movie at all then. It's a display of technology and a means of making money. Obviously this isn't the only movie to do that, but I thought little of the other ones as well. I'll continue to not have much respect for this movie either, aside from the animators who are blowing me away.
... but isn't everyone always asking for a re-do of When Dream and Day Unite with current technology and lineup?
It's equal parts artistic and money-making and I'm on-board with it. I hope they do the entire back catalog of 2D movies using current technology.
Except Fox and the Hound. I feel like that would just come off kind of like Homeward Bound.
EDIT: On second thought... maybe that one could work. Hm...
-
Exactly. It's not an artistic movie at all then. It's a display of technology and a means of making money. Obviously this isn't the only movie to do that, but I thought little of the other ones as well. I'll continue to not have much respect for this movie either, aside from the animators who are blowing me away.
... but isn't everyone always asking for a re-do of When Dream and Day Unite with current technology and lineup?
Because it’s considered an inferior product. People generally do not listen to it because of those things. Lion King is not that.
-
Wow. It's amazing how detailed the total lack of emotion on their faces' is when compared to the original.
-
Exactly. It's not an artistic movie at all then. It's a display of technology and a means of making money. Obviously this isn't the only movie to do that, but I thought little of the other ones as well. I'll continue to not have much respect for this movie either, aside from the animators who are blowing me away.
... but isn't everyone always asking for a re-do of When Dream and Day Unite with current technology and lineup?
Because it’s considered an inferior product. People generally do not listen to it because of those things. Lion King is not that.
To a child comparing it to the newer animated cartoons they were raised on, it is.
-
Exactly. It's not an artistic movie at all then. It's a display of technology and a means of making money. Obviously this isn't the only movie to do that, but I thought little of the other ones as well. I'll continue to not have much respect for this movie either, aside from the animators who are blowing me away.
... but isn't everyone always asking for a re-do of When Dream and Day Unite with current technology and lineup?
It's equal parts artistic and money-making and I'm on-board with it. I hope they do the entire back catalog of 2D movies using current technology.
Sure, like WDARU because of the line up changes... but that's changing things. This appears to be the same, just looks different. So the comparison might be closer to a remaster or remix, which some people do enjoy and like and buy. I typically don't buy those unless I didn't have the original to begin with or had an issue with the original's sound.
-
Exactly. It's not an artistic movie at all then. It's a display of technology and a means of making money. Obviously this isn't the only movie to do that, but I thought little of the other ones as well. I'll continue to not have much respect for this movie either, aside from the animators who are blowing me away.
... but isn't everyone always asking for a re-do of When Dream and Day Unite with current technology and lineup?
Because it’s considered an inferior product. People generally do not listen to it because of those things. Lion King is not that.
To a child comparing it to the newer animated cartoons they were raised on, it is.
You keep saying that. Where are you getting that info from?
-
Wow. It's amazing how detailed the total lack of emotion on their faces' is when compared to the original.
I believe that was done purposely to make it look as real as possible.
The movie looks amazing. I'm surprised by all the negative reaction.
-
Exactly. It's not an artistic movie at all then. It's a display of technology and a means of making money. Obviously this isn't the only movie to do that, but I thought little of the other ones as well. I'll continue to not have much respect for this movie either, aside from the animators who are blowing me away.
... but isn't everyone always asking for a re-do of When Dream and Day Unite with current technology and lineup?
Because it’s considered an inferior product. People generally do not listen to it because of those things. Lion King is not that.
To a child comparing it to the newer animated cartoons they were raised on, it is.
You keep saying that. Where are you getting that info from?
From just being a kid, and being around other kids at that time. Growing up, none of us had the slightest desire to watch anything that wasn't the "new". Why would we watch the old Little Rascals when the new ones were in color? There was a reason we held the old shows like Beast Wars to such a high standard compared to the cartoons we had been brought up on.
-
I think it depends greatly on the kid on what their parents engage them with. I loved watching old Looney Tunes cartoons and stuff like that when I was a kid. I also really enjoyed classic Disney animated movies even though the animation wasn't up to that quality that it was in the 90s.
-
Exactly. It's not an artistic movie at all then. It's a display of technology and a means of making money. Obviously this isn't the only movie to do that, but I thought little of the other ones as well. I'll continue to not have much respect for this movie either, aside from the animators who are blowing me away.
... but isn't everyone always asking for a re-do of When Dream and Day Unite with current technology and lineup?
Because it’s considered an inferior product. People generally do not listen to it because of those things. Lion King is not that.
To a child comparing it to the newer animated cartoons they were raised on, it is.
You keep saying that. Where are you getting that info from?
From just being a kid, and being around other kids at that time. Growing up, none of us had the slightest desire to watch anything that wasn't the "new". Why would we watch the old Little Rascals when the new ones were in color? There was a reason we held the old shows like Beast Wars to such a high standard compared to the cartoons we had been brought up on.
There's a big difference between the animation in animated show and The Lion King. That's just a different league.
And the reason you would watch the old Little Rascals instead of the color film is because the older ones are better.
-
Wow. It's amazing how detailed the total lack of emotion on their faces' is when compared to the original.
I believe that was done purposely to make it look as real as possible.
The movie looks amazing. I'm surprised by all the negative reaction.
Which is in turn going to make them look odd when they starting talking, singing and are required to emote like humans.
I honestly don't get this remake at all.
-
Who said there's going to be singing?
They remade Beauty and the Beast which has talking, anthropomorphic objects (clocks, candles, wardrobes, teapots...). Not really much difference moving over to a full animal cast.
-
I think it depends greatly on the kid on what their parents engage them with. I loved watching old Looney Tunes cartoons and stuff like that when I was a kid. I also really enjoyed classic Disney animated movies even though the animation wasn't up to that quality that it was in the 90s.
Yup, and to continue to use the Little Rascals example, my parents loved them so they bought the box set of the originals on VHS and thats what I would watch, not the colored ones. I did watch and enjoy the movie as a kid, but the old black and white originals were what I enjoyed the most and I could thank my parents for that.
-
Who said there's going to be singing?
They remade Beauty and the Beast which has talking, anthropomorphic objects (clocks, candles, wardrobes, teapots...). Not really much difference moving over to a full animal cast.
1) I think the full trailer showed some singing from Timon and Pumba, not 100% sure though
2) Animals have faces that need to look like animals. A clock does not. You can give a clock a humanish face for expression. If you're choosing not to do that for animals, which is fine, then you have animals with dead pan looks 98% of the time. Which feels odd when they're talking and/or singing.
-
Who said there's going to be singing?
They remade Beauty and the Beast which has talking, anthropomorphic objects (clocks, candles, wardrobes, teapots...). Not really much difference moving over to a full animal cast.
1) I think the full trailer showed some singing from Timon and Pumba, not 100% sure though
2) Animals have faces that need to look like animals. A clock does not. You can give a clock a humanish face for expression. If you're choosing not to do that for animals, which is fine, then you have animals with dead pan looks 98% of the time. Which feels odd when they're talking and/or singing.
Have you seen the Beauty and the Beast remake? They do have faces but they're a far cry from their animated counterparts. Doesn't look much different at all from what they're doing with the animals, the only difference is that we're talking furniture. Look at how Lumiere and Cogsworth look; they have faces but they're far from outstanding or having exaggerated facial expressions. Wardrobe is particularly scary.
-
I have not. Yet my point still stands. You have control over how much expression you give to a clock or a cup. An animal just does NOT have those same freedoms. There's a reason other movies that had voices over a real animal felt so weird. But hey, maybe it'll be awesome. Just pointing an actual logistical problem that I am 100% confident Disney folk have had many discussions about.
-
Eh, it worked fine for Jungle Book. Of all the criticisms one might level at Disney for doing this, I don't really get this one.
-
Eh, it worked fine for Jungle Book. Of all the criticisms one might level at Disney for doing this, I don't really get this one.
Another one I didn't see.
I feel like I need to see some of these at some point. Until then, I'll just blindly criticize without anything to back it up. :)
-
As I posted above, just like with this movie, I had pretty much no desire whatsoever to see it. But I eventually did. And then having done so, I came away feeling like it was well done and worth my time to have seen.
-
I totally forgot about Jungle Book. Yeah, it worked perfectly for that imo.
-
As I posted above, just like with this movie, I had pretty much no desire whatsoever to see it. But I eventually did. And then having done so, I came away feeling like it was well done and worth my time to have seen.
I bet I would too. I have no issues with the movie, for me, it's just not something I want to spend money on essentially. I'd totally watch if it were on TV or someone had the DVD, whatever. I just personally am not a huge fan of the rehashing of everything. Some are probably great, and some definitely make money so I get why they do it, but for my personal consumer tastes, I'd rather spend my money on something original when it comes to movies and I hardly watch movies anymore anyway to really think my opinion means anything.
-
I'm also among the crowd not going to see this - obviously many others are and to be honest I normally don't bother posting about things I'm not interested in since don't like to drag things down for people who are looking forward to it by moaning or come across as arguing for people not to be excited about something, so that's not what I want to do here.
But seeing the point about The Jungle Book reminded me about some reasons I was fine with The Jungle Book and really liked the new one, but didn't feel the same about this. For one, The Jungle Book is based on a book that was quite different from the original Disney animated film, so there was quite clearly a way to do another adaptation differently. Where as The Lion King is an original story (similarities to other works notwithstanding - the 1994 film is the first "The Lion King", not an adaptation of some other source material). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that only things that have source material can be revisited, but it does mean there's a difference in how the new film relates to the old one. If there's more source material to draw on then you can take some different things while still keeping elements of the earlier adaptation in - if the earlier film is the source material then you either have to do a more direct remake, or make a lot of changes and bring in more original material. Now doing something quite different could be good, depending on the changes, but it's a risk since people will tend to see the first film as more "sacred" if it's the original material, not an adaptation.
The other thing about The Jungle Book is it was quite a bit older and had parts of it that felt quite dated (at least from my perspective). Two of the major voices were big jazz musicians of the time, you have the weird Beatles vultures... there's very clearly ways to take it out of the '60s. Combine that with the fact that there were significant elements of the original book not in the animated film then there's an obvious idea of what that modern film might look like that seemed interesting to me. But with The Lion King I'm not so sure - photorealistic animal animation isn't enough of an "improvement" to make a shot for shot remake seem worthwhile, but I'm not sure what changes and new directions they could take it in that I'd like if it's stil meant to be The Lion King.
Also, with The Jungle Book most of the voice actors are dead or at least no longer working, if you want to bring that story to a new generation you very clearly can't just do the old film again. Though I know 25 years is long enough for multiple reboots in this era, it somehow just feels more respectful of the older work if it's not revisited for long enough that it actually needs new people to carry it on. With The Lion King as far as I'm aware you could literally just get most of the old voice actors to do it again. And in fact they did that with James Earl Jones, which is in fact another thing that put me off this - I don't know if I've seen anyone else say this, but to me it feels like it'd be more jarring having one of the original voices interacting with a cast of new ones than just having a clean slate. Hearing James Earl Jones Mufasa will just make me feel like I should be hearing Jeremy Irons as well, or Rowan Atkinson, or Nathan Lane. Plus it feels a bit like hedging their bets - the Lion King needs a remake, but we're not bold enough to recast probably the most impactful voice from it even though everyone else is different.
I realise that's a lot of complaints, just trying to join in the existing discussion about the appeal of a remake though rather than dampen the enthusiasm for those who are hyped. The Lion King was the first film I went to see at the cinema and remains one of my favourites being probably the best Disney animated classic, but it's not one I was keen for a remake of in principle, and the info / trailers we've got for this one haven't made me interested.
-
I think it depends greatly on the kid on what their parents engage them with. I loved watching old Looney Tunes cartoons and stuff like that when I was a kid. I also really enjoyed classic Disney animated movies even though the animation wasn't up to that quality that it was in the 90s.
Yup, and to continue to use the Little Rascals example, my parents loved them so they bought the box set of the originals on VHS and thats what I would watch, not the colored ones. I did watch and enjoy the movie as a kid, but the old black and white originals were what I enjoyed the most and I could thank my parents for that.
I used to have an old tape with a lot of good ones. Even some rascist ones, like when they're playing baseball and hit it into a house, they enter and it ends up being a KKK building. So they end up pretending they're ghosts to scare the kids
-
:lol there was some racism in those old little rascal episodes. I still often say "yum yum eat em up" from the episode with the guy from borneo when I see food I want to eat.
anyway, I just came across this and hence the bump to this thread
https://www.thewrap.com/elton-john-calls-the-lion-king-remake-huge-disappointment-they-messed-the-music-up/ (https://www.thewrap.com/elton-john-calls-the-lion-king-remake-huge-disappointment-they-messed-the-music-up/)
-
My man Elton John spitting truth :corn
-
I just watched the new Lion King on bluray, I thought it was a pretty awesome movie. Well done! 😎