Jump to content

The Lion King (Jon Favreau)


Giftheck

Recommended Posts

A lot of critics are calling out the fact that this film almost feels like a film school experiment, similar to Gus van Sant’s colorized Psycho remake in the 90s.

 

It’s exactly the same movie, just photorealistic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John said:

A lot of critics are calling out the fact that this film almost feels like a film school experiment, similar to Gus van Sant’s colorized Psycho remake in the 90s.

 

It’s exactly the same movie, just photorealistic!

 

Er... not quite. It's 30 minutes longer, which means something has to be different beyond the photorealism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John said:

I heard the end credits are ten minutes longer, and some scenes are given a little more room to breathe. Other than that it’s essentially a shot for shot remake. 

 

Funny because Favreau said aside from a few key shots it wasn't. It's also clear from the revealed dialogue, the msucial score and songs that it's not shot-for-shot.

 

Either way, we won't know until next Friday anyway so it's pointless debating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One review basically said the animals looked lifeless. It said Simba sounded just like Donald Glover talking normally or something similar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, El Jefe said:

One review basically said the animals looked lifeless. It said Simba sounded just like Donald Glover talking normally or something similar. 

 

Because that criticism can't be levelled at anybody voicing in the original film Matthew Broderick :lol:

 

I do think that Disney have been a bit heavy-handed with the amount of remakes, though. Perhaps they should lay off them for a while.

 

Ah, who am I kidding? Audiences will see them anyway, so they'll keep making 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, they are projecting a $150 + million opening weekend for the film. 

 

But as far as something new or different, it’s apparently not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing a remake for something new or different is a bit of a contradiction in terms, isn't it? If critics went in expecting that, more fool them.

 

I expected it to have the same basic plot, some changed dialogue, some reorganized sequences, and some new sequences. That appears to be what we're getting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, El Jefe said:

One review basically said the animals looked lifeless. It said Simba sounded just like Donald Glover talking normally or something similar. 

 

Yeah, I only watched a clip admittedly but it looks really stupid like this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gistech said:

Seeing a remake for something new or different is a bit of a contradiction in terms, isn't it?

 

No, not really. Lots of remakes (and sequels for that matter) take something key about the original and change it up, making something new and different, but familiar enough to bring the fans of the original back.

 

1 hour ago, Gistech said:

I expected it to have the same basic plot, some changed dialogue, some reorganized sequences, and some new sequences. That appears to be what we're getting.

 

There is something to be said for this. Some of the negative reviews are no doubt from people who expected the same things as you. Others probably hoped for something fresh and have given their negative reviews out of genuine disappointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s astounding to me that any adult would be excited enough about this movie they haven’t seen to defend it against critics.

 

Also the self-selecting RT audience score is a meaningless measure of nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will catch it on home video. I must say I loved the Jungle Book but I always liked the cartoon version over the Lion King.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, A. A. Ron said:

 

No, not really. Lots of remakes (and sequels for that matter) take something key about the original and change it up, making something new and different, but familiar enough to bring the fans of the original back.

 

 

There is something to be said for this. Some of the negative reviews are no doubt from people who expected the same things as you. Others probably hoped for something fresh and have given their negative reviews out of genuine disappointment.

 

I find it amusing they were okay with Beauty and the Beast, which from what I can tell was far more closer to 'shot-for-shot', much closer to what i described.

 

We won't know anyway until next week, so there's not really a point debating whether it's what I said or whether it does actually go beyond that surface level. Critics are fickle creatures anyway and I guarantee the audience won't see it their way. They haven't for anything the critics hated this year so far (with one or two possible exceptions - looking at you, Dark Phoenix)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldnt have minded if they did a shot by shot remake of TLK really, i just want to see the CGI realistic animals. I hope they are an improvement over the jungle book's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then, the main complaint I hear is just that: that photorealistic animals and landscapes aren't conducive for the hightened tone of a musical about talking, Shakespearean animals. I also hear it isn't conducive to performances because the realistic feline faces aren't emotive. At the end of the day, you can't just smear "live action paint" over an animated feature.

 

I heard a similar remark regarding The Jungle Book - where I didn't mind it too much - but at least that story had a human among the animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah talking animals are weird unless they are cartoons. But walking with dinosaurs film did not work with the "thought dialogue" and the non talkative version didnt work as a doccumentary...because well dinosaurs made some cartoonish-acting things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Gistech said:

 

Er... not quite. It's 30 minutes longer, which means something has to be different beyond the photorealism.

 

 

Apparently Beyonce performs a new song. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, El Jefe said:

 

 

Apparently Beyonce performs a new song. 😉

 

Something something about 'spirit' that Favreau said would be in the film.

 

At least judging from the music, at least the Stampede and Battle of Pride Rock scenes will be changed and/or elaborated upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fabulin said:

Dinosaur (2000) had CGI animals that were really emotive.

 

Yeah, but they weren't real dinosaurs, they didn't even have feathers or gobble like turkeys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, one of the reviews I read said it looked like the animals were talking telepathically. 

 

I can understand Disney wanting to play it safe for the most part and stick to what made the animated film successful. There’s only so much you can change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

But then, the main complaint I hear is just that: that photorealistic animals and landscapes aren't conducive for the hightened tone of a musical about talking, Shakespearean animals. I also hear it isn't conducive to performances because the realistic feline faces aren't emotive. At the end of the day, you can't just smear "live action paint" over an animated feature.

Yeah, I feel like it looks great, but it just doesn't clash with the music and talking very gracefully. I mean, it looks like it could be an Animal Planet documentary or something- there's nothing wrong with the visuals from what I can see, it's just that it doesn't work like an animated cartoon would. 

 

6 minutes ago, Fabulin said:

Dinosaur (2000) had CGI animals that were really emotive.

Yes! The monkies were especially emotive, and the dinosaurs were surprisingly expressive too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Gistech said:

Yeah, but they weren't real dinosaurs, they didn't even have feathers or gobble like turkeys!

5 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

Yes! The monkies were especially emotive, and the dinosaurs were surprisingly expressive too!

In the 2000 documentary someone said that they wanted at first to have dinosaurs with realistic beaks, less emotive eyes, lack of eyelashes etc., but decided that the story and human emotions are paramount. Good choice. The movie is by humans and for humans. Animal characters are merely symbols.

 

19 years later...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Gistech said:

I do think that Disney have been a bit heavy-handed with the amount of remakes, though. Perhaps they should lay off them for a while.

 

At the rate they're churning them out, they'll have done them all within the next three years.

 

Wonder if they'll do The Black Cauldron?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Fabulin said:

Live action Goofy Movie will send them into a meltdown like that computer in Logan's Run. Neither man nor beast. Does not compute...

 

If only Roscoe Lee Browne could grace modern junk like this. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2019 at 10:42 AM, John said:

A lot of critics are calling out the fact that this film almost feels like a film school experiment, similar to Gus van Sant’s colorized Psycho remake in the 90s.

 

It’s exactly the same movie, just photorealistic!

 

I love the 1998 Psycho!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, xWxzek said:

 

Yes, but they will call it The Cauldron to avoid offending minorities and the prejudiced. 

 

It'll obviously be called The Rainbow Cauldron!

 

Oh, wait... can't use that either.

 

Spoiler

You'll only get that if you know about them changing 'baa, baa black sheep' into 'baa, baa rainbow sheep' here in a UK school.

 

Dark Cauldron?

 

Nope, sure that's off limits too.

 

Heck, they might just ditch 'cauldron' entirely since that's demeaning to those that practice witchcraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about it. I like Hans Zimmer's revisit of the score, but I just don't plan on seeing this.

 

I decided not to go see Jon Favreau's version of The Lion King for four reasons: 1.) I have the original 1994 animated masterpiece that is The Lion King. 2.) I learned my lesson from Aladdin 2019, and due to the mixed reaction, I am not going to pay money to go to the theaters for ANOTHER mixed bag, regardless of the considerable talent behind this adaptation. 3.) I'll be subscribing to Disney+ anyway, so I can wait until after it launches on November 12 to see it for myself. 4.) The original was phenomenal, and this 2019 photo-realistic remake seems pointless, especially considering that there does not seem to be anything to compliment the original or have it stand on its own, like combining elements from the original and Broadway production.

 

Does anyone plan on seeing this in theaters? If so, I would love to know any thorough reactions.

 
  •  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m thinking about seeing in theaters after all, but in the least expensive way possible (ie, morning weekday matinee and no concession food). Primarily I want to see the visuals, which are supposed to be amazing, and hear some of the voice acting. That will be worth $8 for me.

 

My main peeve with this upcoming film is with the amount of timidity shown by Disney in a feature movie that’s supposed to herald a game-changing film technology. They could have done an Avatar and introduced the world to a technology leap through an original story, but they decided they’d rather give us a retread. Worse, they decided they’d give us the exact same story as before, beats and all. What would have been wrong with mixing up or adding to the basic plot line? Tim Burton managed to do it with Dumbo and it was great.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except with James Cameron's Avatar, the story was hardly worth anything, much less was it original. The technology behind it was the only thing going for it, and that fact more or less seems to be the case with The Lion King 2019, but we'll see. Regarding Dumbo, I don't believe that went well financially, critically and audience reception. I did not bother checking that out, though I was tempted due to the trailers; I'm glad you seemed to like it. I look forward to reading the feedback of your viewing of The Lion King 2019, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The movie is what I wanted it to be. A beautiful looking (great imagery) faithful remake in live action. The Beyonce song replaces a great score moment...they should had made a song with Nala on  it's own in another place...

 

Damn cinema had sound problems as it sounded like tiny stereo...so the experience was a little of a letdown :(

 

And baby pumbaa...is ananatomically incorrect, it's a wildboar piglet...not a warthog piglet....weird.

 

 

PS: the Disney logo is a cartoon version of the new CGI version. I found it funny and ironically fitting.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the Disney logo is like the logo utilized in The Jungle Book?

 

Interesting reaction. Obviously the visuals are a standout. Does it combine elements from the original and the Broadway production, are is it simply the original re-told with photorealistic CGI? Is there anything noteworthy that allows this to justify it's existence and compliment the original masterpiece?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The jungle book logo I think looked more bookish, but I haven't seen it since my fist time, could be the same.

 

I think it has enough differences and additions to be worth it. Timon and pumba scenes are very fun. I liked the new twist as how simba's aliveness arrives to rafiki.

 

I was very glad that in the Spanish version, zazu, rafiki, pumba and Timon have their original voices...I suppose that in part is because our great James earl Jones dubber died a few years ago :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody gives a shit about Rotten Tomatoes obviously. But this movie has 27.3% of IMDb users giving it a 10/10, which is usually the number I look at after a year. So we'll wait for that number to come down before I see it.

 

On 7/13/2019 at 5:55 AM, xWxzek said:

 

Yes, but they will call it The Cauldron to avoid offending minorities and the prejudiced. 

 

The African-American Cauldron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got back from The Lion King, had enough time to digest what I saw to give my opinion.

 

Spoiler

 

First off, what are the critics smoking? They're acting like this is the worst thing ever and that is patently untrue.

 

Second, let's address the shot-for-shot remake claims. They're also false - at least to an extent. The opening and ending are pretty close to the original films and there are some scenes throughout that obviously reference the original film closely. But it's half-an-hour longer with some significant expansion on some of the material in the original film. There are even scenes that aren't in the original film at all (no Zazu in bone prison, folks).

 

My verdict is that it sticks faithfully to its source material without being too slavish in copying it. My biggest issues with the film stem from some of the delivery of dialogue. Oh, and Be Prepared. It was an obvious shoehorning in as it's literally the only song in the film that isn't a straight-up reprisal of the original.

Beyonce's new song 'Spirit' features prominently after the Mufasa Ghost scene. It's the only other one besides Be Prepared where I thought 'what are you doing?' It's not a bad song, but it doesn't fit Simba and Nala running through the desert back to the Pride Lands. I miss Zimmer's original cue for that scene in the original film - Busa Simba would have fit it much better and I can see myself trying it when the film comes out on home media.

 

The characters themselves: the actors do perfectly well with them, though there were times I missed Ernie Sabella (Pumbaa) and Jeremy Irons (Scar) when there was a bad delivery. I will say that Scar actually seems more sinister in places, and less flamboyant than the Jeremy Irons portrayal. The hyenas are actually much more menacing, played as a threat rather than the villain's gag sidekicks.

 

 

The biggest thing for this film is the blank slate it provides. They can do anything with this now, and I really hope they get the chance. This is a world that deserves to be built on.

So my final rating is 7/10, though it's a higher 7 than I thought I would give it. Some muddy choices mean it misses some points and the transition from animated format to photorealistic means some of the character of the original is inevitably lost, but it's nowhere near as bad as critics say and I daresay it has some pretty powerful moments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting review. If nothing else, I was hoping Hans Zimmer would additionally revisit "This Is My Home" from the original masterpiece. That was a powerful moment both visually and musically. To know that this adaptation does not evoke that moment and instead relies on the new song "Spirit" by Beyoncé, which is a good song by the way, instead of that powerful cue by Hans Zimmer feels a little disappointing and a missed opportunity. Maybe the song could have fit somewhere else in the film, or maybe just the end credits? I'm just waiting to see the film on Disney+.

 

I'm curious to ask. How does the sequence with Mufasa's spirit look in this adaptation? One of the things I was actually looking forward to seeing adapted with this technology was that sequence in particular. Again, I changed my mind about seeing this adaptation in theaters, but I still want to know how that sequence looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, JohnnyD said:

 

I'm curious to ask. How does the sequence with Mufasa's spirit look in this adaptation? One of the things I was actually looking forward to seeing adapted with this technology was that sequence in particular. Again, I changed my mind about seeing this adaptation in theaters, but I still want to know how that sequence looks.

Spoiler

It a thunderstorm where lighting cracks at times and and depicts mufasas drawlines. I thought it looked cool.

The Beyonce song...why is the single on the soundtrack? Hasn't she released a cd full of his songs inspired by the film? Now we don't have the un-pop restrained film version...and definately if an expansion is made...people from foreign countries would not be able to create their own translated version...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, JohnnyD said:

Interesting review. If nothing else, I was hoping Hans Zimmer would additionally revisit "This Is My Home" from the original masterpiece. That was a powerful moment both visually and musically. To know that this adaptation does not evoke that moment and instead relies on the new song "Spirit" by Beyoncé, which is a good song by the way, instead of that powerful cue by Hans Zimmer feels a little disappointing and a missed opportunity. Maybe the song could have fit somewhere else in the film, or maybe just the end credits? I'm just waiting to see the film on Disney+.

 

I get the sequence in question was longer in the new film, but that could have made for a much more expansive version of Busa Simba. Though I do wonder if Zimmer did in fact compose something and they decided to go with the Beyonce song instead - IIRC they said that it was going to be used in the end credits sequence then changed their minds.

 

I also did miss the Busa Simba start of the credits - it goes straight into Elton John's new song instead.

 

Musically-speaking, these two are the only two disappointments I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.