Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by AKA, Nov 1, 2017.
Ah. I forgot that one was a hit. I actually slept through it.
I can definitely perceive that being the case. Too much realism.
This is a remake that can't miss so far as box office potential. Folks and their kids will want to see this regardless of the reviews so long as the whole thing looks as good as the trailers do, and it sure does.
We took in a late, late show of Lion King last night, the new CGI photorealistic animated version from director Jon Favreau. Critics have been sharpening up their knives for this thing, and I know the purists are outraged that the studio would "defile our childhoods" by remaking a 1994 cartoon classic... but I actually enjoyed it. I didn't expect to, but maybe I was in the right mood. I thought the visuals were stunning, I completely believed I was in Africa watching wild animals in the jungle, and within 15 minutes, I almost stopped being amazed at the technical work and just settled in to watch the stories and characters.
Yeah, it's a little bit by rote, it's predictable, there's not a lot new from the 25-year-old film... but it has genuinely good moments. I see why it's making so much money at the box office. And the color (from Steve Scott and his crew at CO3) was exemplary -- just state-of-the-art work. One of the most beautiful films I've seen in a long time.
True, I did have a few Uncanny Valley moments with a lack of a sense of "weight" for some of the characters, and I thought some of the camera moves were a little too fast and abrupt, moving around in ways that wouldn't be very easy in the real world. And the lack of flexibility of the realistic animal faces does hinder their ability to emote (which is relatively easy in cartoon animation). But none of these moments stuck out enough for me to not enjoy the film.
The Lion King review: Remake might be too realistic for its own good
I still haven't seen the original!
I have never watched the original film from beginning to end, so most of what I saw today at the theater was new.
It didn't feel like a child's movie, the story was quite dramatic and violent, as it should be when dealing with wild animals in Africa.
It's a good movie. The 1994 animated film wound up making a whopping $968 million dollars worldwide (based on a production budget of only $45 million!), so it was an immensely successful film. My guess is the new film cost at least 7-8 times that. It's almost a shot-for-shot remake, so don't expect anything drastically different.
My son isn't interested in the new Lion King (he is 4), so I will probably start with the original. He does like cartoons.
It must be bringing them in. I checked at the AMC theater I used to visit and there are 22 showings today alone.
My young nephews gave this a big thumbs up .
my wife really wants to see this...I do too! love the original.
that's what I like most about this! Indeed...no surprises I am surprised Hollyweird didn't try and add some of their agenda to a new audience!
Monster hit. They were predicting maybe $150M-$155M, but it soared all the way to $185 million domestic this weekend...
'Lion King' Roars to $185 Million Opening
It's not a great movie for me, but it was a lot better than I expected and I'd call it a "good" movie. 93 on RottenTomatoes, but only a 55 on Metacritic. If I had to assign it a number from 1-100, I'd go right inbetween, about a 75.
I'm curious how this will look in total...saw the trailer and was impressed...the technology is there so why not? a worthy remake of a fine movie...
The reviews have been what I'd call "severely mixed." I think the problem is that the 1994 animated film was really beloved by a lot of people, so there's been a loud chorus of "why remake this wonderful film?" drowning out any positive comments. It's one thing to remake Jungle Book, which is a 53-year-old movie, but it seems a little soon to remake one from the '90s.
This review is on the negative side, but it's not too far off from how I feel:
The ‘Lion King’ Remake Exists. But Why?
If you go into this thing with a completely open mind, or if you've never seen the 1994 animated film (which is by any definition a classic), it's not that bad a film.
thanks for the link...I can relate to some not wanting to see the new remake...when Netflix remade Lost In Space...I was disgusted! I wound up loving it and am hoping for a second season...
The film was a technological marvel, but it added nothing to the original film.
Yeah, I expected the Lost in Space reboot to be horrible -- especially with a female Dr. Smith -- but much to my surprise, it grew on me over time and was actually very well-done. I think Season 2 doesn't start up until like November/December.
I have mixed feelings on these reboots/remakes, because I'd much rather they just come up with a completely new idea, new stories, new characters, an entirely new creative thing. It's hard to get upset when they do it 50 years later; 25 for Lion King is not great timing. But as I said, I don't think it's a bad movie at all. Kids who've never seen the original could very likely love it.
I think that's true in terms of story and characters, but the visuals were spectacular, and that's the only reason why I went to see it. It didn't disappoint me there. I was really stunned by some of the VFX work.
A lot of people brought young kids where I saw it, but I personally think some parts are much too scary for a 4 year old.
I'd also be curious to know if anyone who never saw the original enjoys the new one.
Yup. It's a lot like the 2017 "Beauty and the Beast": not a shot-by-shot remake, but very, very similar.
Though I admit Disney's in a "damned if you do..." situation. Stick close to the source and get criticized. Veer too far away - ala "Dumbo" - and get criticized.
Of the 4 that stayed close, I guess "Jungle Book" was the most different, but all are true enough to the source that you wonder why they exist at all.
Rhetorical - I know the answer is $$$, and the huge success of the 4 close ones - and NOT the differing "Dumbo" - says to me future live-action remakes will be essentially carbon copies of the source...
Would be interesting to hear from anyone who sees the 2019 and then watches the 1994 for the first time.
I love the 1994 and thought the 2019 was essentially a snoozer, but it's tough to compare. I've had 25 years of the 1994 and have seen it at least a dozen times.
My gut says it's "objectively" superior, if just because the depiction of the anthropomorphic animals works better. The photo-real animals showed very little expression and that made them have less impact - the voices would act emotions but we didn't see them.
Whereas the cartoon animals boasted a wide range of emotions.
Photoreal anthropomorphized animals work as supporting characters with humans, but as the whole magilla, it's more of a problem...
BTW, I think the original cast is much better than the new cast.
Except the guy who plays Mufasa in the 2019 film - he's waaay better than the actor who did the part in 1994!
I think I like John Oliver and Rowan Atkinson equally, but besides that I agree with you.
Oliver did fine - basically impersonated Atkinson, but he was one of the better performers.
To my surprise, I really like Rogen's turn on Pumbaa. I've soured on Rogen in recent years, but he made the character his own and added real charm to the part.
On the other hand, Billy Eichner's Timon was awful. Bitchy and unpleasant - he made Timon an unlikable character.
BTW, it seemed weird that the 2019 film made Timon and Pumbaa part of a semi-clan with other animals. The whole point in the original is that both were shunned by others and only had each other - that's why they turned their back on the world.
Now they've got plenty of pals! WTF?
I’m not thread rapping, but I saw the animated film once & that experience will last me a lifetime.
Separate names with a comma.