Lion King - Official Trailer

[Adami]

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.

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.

[Chino]

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.

[Adami]

A fair point, but not my major point.

[cramx3]

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" 

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

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.

[ThatOneGuy2112]

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.

[Indiscipline]

I'm going, just like I would buy a remastered album I loved in the 90s.

[ReaperKK]

I’m pretty damn excited as the lion king was my favorite movie growing up

[MinistroRaven]

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

[hefdaddy42]

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

[The Walrus]

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.

[MinistroRaven]

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

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[PetFish]

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.

[The Walrus]

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...

[Adami]

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.

[soupytwist]

Wow. It's amazing how detailed the total lack of emotion on their faces' is when compared to the original.

[Chino]

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.

[cramx3]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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?

[kaos2900]

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.

[Chino]

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.

[lordxizor]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[soupytwist]

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.

[The Walrus]

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.

[cramx3]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[The Walrus]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[bosk1]

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.

[Adami]

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. 

[bosk1]

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.

[The Walrus]

I totally forgot about Jungle Book. Yeah, it worked perfectly for that imo.

[cramx3]

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.