The Lion King Remake

[Dacey]

After the extreme success of The Jungle Book and the sure-to-be extreme success of next year's Beauty and the Beast, I suppose this isn't surprising. Though since Jon says this is his "next project," I wonder what this means for his Jungle Book sequel.

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/7 ... king-movie

[Ben]

This just seems so redundant to me, but is there any point in having a Disney Animation anymore?

I mean, now that anything can be told photorealistically, do we need the likes of Tangled, Frozen or Big Hero 6 when they could be made in "live-action"?

You just know a "live-action" Frozen will come along in ten or fifteen years.

Apart from that I just don't get the point. The story has been done, exceptionally, in the animated medium. Despite the different rendering, all this will be is another animated version, unlike The Jungle Book, which was based on a book to begin with but had a point to it in having a real-life boy.

This will look fantastic, it will be extremely well made and probably highly enjoyable. But is there any real point to it? No.

[EricJ]

After ...the sure-to-be extreme success of next year's Beauty and the Beast,

They're still keeping understandably mum about whether it's really the filmed Broadway musical or not. Although after Cinderella, they probably don't care.

This just seems so redundant to me, but is there any point in having a Disney Animation anymore?
Apart from that I just don't get the point. The story has been done, exceptionally, in the animated medium. Despite the different rendering, all this will be is another animated version, unlike The Jungle Book, which was based on a book to begin with but had a point to it in having a real-life boy.

Disney tends to make three movies at once before the first one hits, and if it does, they make five more of it. They're a bit insecure that way.
The fact that Jungle Book did become a hit, and make it look "easy", took their insecurities so by "You liked it, you really liked it!" surprise, that should keep Jon Favreau in work for life, and he probably never will get around to that Magic Kingdom movie.
The idea of doing a live-action Jungle Book started out as "Let's do the actual book this time", but by the time we had Favreau using the original music and the characters karaoke'ing the songs, it became more just nostalgia-pageant.

Going by the fact that the Lion King wasn't based on a classic book to "get right this time" (holds up Harrison-Ford finger before Ben can use the H-word), it's just a cash-grab made for the exact same reason we probably WILL get a live-action Frozen...Even though we already did on Once Upon a Time, and they'd probably use the live-action Cinderella's box-office as an excuse.
At least we know this Lion King won't be the filmed Broadway musical.

[Dacey]

They're still keeping understandably mum about whether it's really the filmed Broadway musical or not.

It's not the Broadway musical filmed. They've already said so.

[Ben]

...And I already acknowledged that Lion King isn't based on a book.

(But I like the Ford finger reference!)

[Bill1978]

Apart from the money making reason, I don't understand this logic at all. I still don't understand the need to remake Beauty & The Beast, especially since the household objects are going to be animated. I'm guessing since re-releases of the original films into theatres have no value any more like they use to, thanks to home video market, this is Disney's new millennium approach to re-releases.

This news really had be shaking my head and thinking NOOOOOO!! and I'm not even that much of a fan of the original. I think the public's love of the movie is ridiculous. And I'm not really sure photorealistic animals singing the songs is going to look that sensible either.

[Dacey]

I will say I'm extremely excited about B&TB. The cast is perfect and they seem to be going for the right approach with it.

[EricJ]

The fact that Jungle Book did become a hit, and make it look "easy", took their insecurities so by "You liked it, you really liked it!" surprise, that should keep Jon Favreau in work for life, and he probably never will get around to that Magic Kingdom movie.

Now the latest rumor is that Disney wants to take the Magic Kingdom idea (which may have supposed to be the Kingdom Keepers book series that didn't connect enough with Disney's marketing ideas), and turn it into a "Once Upon a Time style drama series" for ABC.

Not sure whether they're grooming it to be OUAT's "replacement", but certainly looks like they'd rather have Favreau making Disney movies we know than Disney rides, if Jungle Book made more money than Jungle Cruise would have.

[James]

These are almost as annoying as when Disney went overboard with sequels.












Almost.

[Daniel]

Here's the full trailer:



Pretty underwhelming. A few nice visuals to be sure and its nice to hear that iconic score, but it just feels lazy. The designs are just... borderline ugly? The realistic approach doesn't seem to add much. Aside from one scene, I couldn't tell Simba and Nala apart. Scar doesn't look nearly menacing enough, same for his voice. Kinda sounds like a mixture of Irons and the Lion Guard's Scar. He looks so average and doesn't pop out.

You can really tell what's lost in translation.

[Ben]

I still don’t see the point of this.

Photorealism? Apply it to something new! (It's *not* live-action!)

This is kind of like that shot for shot remake of Psycho. As I’ve said before, so much of it is lifted from the original movie it’s like that’s just an elaborate storyboard now. I don’t see how the writer and director can feel genuine in taking those credits when so much is not only recycled, but basically copy and pasted over!

The score? From the first movie. Mufasa? From the first movie, though not sounding anywhere as majestic. He just sounds old. Timon and Pumbaa? New voices, but sounding like the same old same old.

Scar doesn’t sound anywhere as menacing as Irons. Why’d they not just get him back too!? Run away and never return is now a throwaway line, not the earth-shattering moment thatchanged the direction of the original movie!

This will be a huge, humongous, massive smash hit. But it will also be soulless, empty exercise that, like Beauty And The Beast, just reminds us we could be watching a better, tighter, funnier and more emotional original.

It also feels like Disney, at this point, is just filling up their little choice boxes for Disney+ rather than wanting genuine theatrical awe. Just as one new movie drops, we get the onslaught for the next one, more and more just a few weeks away. There’s no build up anymore, just a constant parade of next, next, next, before the last one has even really managed to be digested. Less than two weeks out, Dumbo is old again, as will Aladdin be by the time The Lion King comes along six weeks later.

[ShyViolet]

Really nothing to add here; Ben, you summarized it PERFECTLY.


(And TOTALLY agree about Irons. )

[Daniel]

Was browsing around to see if anyone had made a comparison video and there's a bunch! Here's one I feel captured it best:



Side by side speaks volumes! Look how bright, lush and grand the original looks by comparison. The copy is too dark, overly detail and bland. That shot of Simba right before he puts his paw down really showcases what's lost. You can see the emotion in the handrawn scene, the other Simba looks as if nothing.

[Randall]

They've really missed the boat here. Unless--- they wanted to put out another animated film using the same shots as the original, but remove all of the magic of the first by turning it into something that looks more like a bland nature documentary, using bored actors doing uninspired voiceovers. Then, they've succeeded perfectly.


The Lion King? More like a True Life Adventure film that would barely rate as Wonderful World of Disney filler on Sunday night television.

They really tried to make the animals non-anthropomorphic, and thereby lost everything that made the story appealing in the first place. It's an interesting technical exercise, but not a good reason for a film.

[EricJ]

Gets back to the comment made in another thread, that they "have" to do this to get a generational reissue back in theaters:

Disney doesn't like to admit it, but they basically believe the mythical "90's Disney Renaissance" of everyone's childhood consisted of three films. (It should consist of four, but for some reason, Little Mermaid keeps being overlooked until the last minute, probably for not being a 90's film.)
And so, every time Disney thinks they've hit on a "gimmick", we have to get the Beauty-Aladdin-Lion King TRIPLE PLAY: IMAX. 3-D. Broadway. Wherever one becomes a hit, the other two/three must follow, all or none. We can never have just one singled out, except in the case where the second release flopped (like Lion King in IMAX or Beauty in 3-D), and they ditched the plans early.
What of Pocahontas, Hunchback and Mulan? Sorry, anything '95 and after was the Years of Shame, and doesn't constitute one of the corporate Three Musketeers.

Here, they're hedging their bets, going with Beauty/Beast's March-fangirl-week success for the live-action versions and putting Lion King and Aladdin out all at once, so neither one of the two has time to flop (ahemlionking) and cancel the other.