Disney's Live Action Lion King Teaser Trailer...

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Its real:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CbLXeGSDxg

And it doesn't look like ass...

Disney, please don't ruin it this time...

CaitSeith:
Disney, please don't ruin it this time...

Sadly you can make any movie good looking with a trailer.

Its when they reveal Timon and Pumba and Hakuna Matata is when shit goes down hill.

And Can You Feel The Love Tonight.

CaitSeith:
Disney, please don't ruin it this time...

When did Disney ruin Lion King?

Samtemdo8:
Its real:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CbLXeGSDxg

And it doesn't look like ass...

No, it doesn't. Y'know what it does look like? A shot for shot remake of a film that never be to remade, proving that there's no reason for this film to exist apart from the pay cheque.

Y'know, at least with Jungle Book we got a different story from the original, but this? Just, why?

Hawki:

CaitSeith:
Disney, please don't ruin it this time...

When did Disney ruin Lion King?

Samtemdo8:
Its real:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CbLXeGSDxg

And it doesn't look like ass...

A shot for shot remake of a film

To the point we are even getting James Earl Jones to recast himself as Mufasa.

But funny I get to see Lion King remade in this "Hyper Realistic" CGI animation instead of somthing like looks like Pixar/Frozen.

"Live Action"

All the animals are CGI and backgrounds are CGI. There's nothing live action about it, it's a CGI movie, so what's the point of even making it? You're just doing a shot for shot remake of the animated movie but with a different animation style.

I know I only just mentioned TaleSpin but...

Can't they give these Disney CGI remakes a rest, take the characters from Jungle Book, and give us a TaleSpin movie? At least that'd be something they haven't already done before.

Ok, first of all I feel obliged to correct you on the terminology. That is not live action. Live action is when a production uses actors and actresses rather than animation. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was live action. Homeward Bound was live action. Arsenic and Old Lace was live action. The Matrix was live action. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a mix of live action and animation. This Lion King is not live action, it's computer animation.

And on that note, I have to say that I'm getting tired of this trend with Disney. It was maybe novel the first few times, and at least Maleficent tried to shake things up a bit (not unlike Wicked, really, albeit less successfully). But this looks like it's just trying to recreate the original with CGI rather than traditional animation. And that accomplishes nothing.

'This summer, watch as beloved characters with appealing, colourful designs get turned into generic, grey, constructions with matted CG fur.'

And Disney eating its own tail continues. Can't wait for generic live-action Mulan and generic live-action Aladdin.

Aladdin and The Lion King in the same year? Disney's just rushing everything out there, isn't it?

Anyway, if this movie manages to capture a new audience then good on it 👍

The Lion King is my favorite animated movie. I don't like that they're doing this, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because The Jungle Book was actually really good and this is from the same director. I don't expect it to be better than the original, I'll be happy if it doesn't take a dump on its memory.

Maybe it's because I have never seen the original Lion King movie because I can't stand talking animals , but the trailer felt so generic, if someone replaced the Lion King logo with "Ubisoft presents... FAR CRY: SOMETHING and added some random cgi footage of mercenaries with guns or something I'd believe it.

Another Disney remake of one of their classic films that was already great. Pass.

Am not feeling any personal negativity towards this. Maybe it's because I am unable to feel any attachment to beloved things, maybe it's because I want to see everybody's childhood, including mine, burn to ghostly cinders and radiated shadows upon time, or maybe it's because all of this will become meaningless in the re-education camps we will eventually live out our last few years before the Earth's boiling plastic-ridden seas enact their vengeance upon us by consuming us all for our relentless contempt as the wealthiest fly away in pristine Virgin spaceships with only a select few lucky working-class people - mainly Richard Branson's employes of recent months who just happen to be young females he finds attractive and fertile - picked for the bold, incestuous future amongst the stars of repopulating the next unsupecting victim circling a sun.

Anyway, calling it a "live-action" instead of "realistic animation" seems not much different from calling that guy in a santa suit "Santa" instead of "Nigel who recently got out of prison for being found with incriminating pics of kiddos on his home PC."

Xsjadoblayde:
Am not feeling any personal negativity towards this. Maybe it's because I am unable to feel any attachment to beloved things, maybe it's because I want to see everybody's childhood, including mine, burn to ghostly cinders and radiated shadows in time, or maybe it's because all of this will become meaningless in the re-education camps we will eventually live out our last few years before the Earth's boiling plastic-ridden seas enact their vengeance upon us by consuming us all for our relentless contempt as the wealthiest fly away in pristine Virgin spaceships with only a select few lucky working-class people - mainly Richard Branson's employes of recent months who just happen to be young females he finds attractive and fertile - picked for the bold, incestuous future amongst the stars of repopulating the next unsupecting victim circling a sun.

Anyway, calling it a "live-action" instead of "realistic animation" seems not much different from calling that guy in a santa suit "Santa" instead of "Nigel who recently got out of prison for being found with incriminating pics of kiddos on his home PC."

Ok dude....you need to get out of the house stop listening to such depressing stuff on the internet.

And yes I know its not live action because so far we haven't seen a single human being in this movie.

Samtemdo8:
Ok dude....you need to get out of the house stop listening to such depressing stuff on the internet.

And yes I know its not live action because so far we haven't seen a single human being in this movie.

Never! Even going out has to inevitably get bookended by coming back, you cannot escape it either way. And this way at least avoids the blurried shame and looming hangover. Plus I don't listen to stuff on the internet, just lie to myself instead and cut out the middle-man.

(Was being mildly facetious overall, it's the only effective way to compartmentalise the eternal despair ;) )

((And the last bit was basically a convoluted way of saying "it's probably for the kids."))

Meh. I mean, if people want this remake I guess that's okay, but I don't know why I should care.

Squilookle:
I know I only just mentioned TaleSpin but...

Can't they give these Disney CGI remakes a rest, take the characters from Jungle Book, and give us a TaleSpin movie? At least that'd be something they haven't already done before.

I would dig a Tail Spin movie; that show was tight.

Asita:
Ok, first of all I feel obliged to correct you on the terminology. That is not live action. Live action is when a production uses actors and actresses rather than animation. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was live action. Homeward Bound was live action. Arsenic and Old Lace was live action. The Matrix was live action. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a mix of live action and animation. This Lion King is not live action, it's computer animation.

And on that note, I have to say that I'm getting tired of this trend with Disney. It was maybe novel the first few times, and at least Maleficent tried to shake things up a bit (not unlike Wicked, really, albeit less successfully). But this looks like it's just trying to recreate the original with CGI rather than traditional animation. And that accomplishes nothing.

The story is a partial adaptation of Hamlet anyway so the original Lion King, outside of its music, also doesn't really accomplish anything either.

That said, I'm looking at this as a really expensive sort of technology stress test or demo because as of this writing, Disney is less than five years away from its centenary and I am of the (probably unfounded) opinion that a lot of this re-releasing is a combination of aforementioned tech demo and fundraiser for some kind of spectacular blow them out of the water event picture in 2023.

I could of course be wrong and its merely the cynical, mercenary money making exercise that everyone else says it is. Which is fine too.

What's the point? We already have Lion King and it's great. Just like the Beauty and the Beast remake, this can only be inferior to the original, especially because of the lack of creativity.

And not live action. If it was live action, now that would be impressive!

Gordon_4:

The story is a partial adaptation of Hamlet anyway so the original Lion King, outside of its music, also doesn't really accomplish anything either.

Yeah, it's an adaption of Hamlet. Except the plot, characters, themes, species, and story are all completely different. Okay yeah, the uncle kills the king and the nephew takes revenge, but apart from that the two works share almost nothing in common.

To recap: it's not live-action if everything's CG, shot-by-shot remakes are pointless, and the whole thing has such an identity void it can't reimagine anything or develop its own personality. Darth Vader as Mufasa and shot-by-shot rehash it is.

Drathnoxis:

Gordon_4:

The story is a partial adaptation of Hamlet anyway so the original Lion King, outside of its music, also doesn't really accomplish anything either.

Yeah, it's an adaption of Hamlet. Except the plot, characters, themes, species, and story are all completely different. Okay yeah, the uncle kills the king and the nephew takes revenge, but apart from that the two works share almost nothing in common.

Also the nephew has a couple of friends whose purpose is to distract him from getting revenge. Though Timon and Pumbaa aren't working for Scar the same way Rosencrantz and Guildenstern work for Claudius. And thankfully there's no Simba killing pompous, ineffective advisor Zazu as Hamlet kills pompous ineffective advisor Polonius.

You know, the previous live action remakes all sought to address problems with the original. Cinderella tried to give some actual agency and character to Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast tried to make it look less like Stockholm Syndrome etc. But what can you build on or improve with Lion King? Its already great! Same with the Aladdin one there's been a teaser for, what exactly are you doing better than the original did?

Palindromemordnilap:

Drathnoxis:

Gordon_4:

The story is a partial adaptation of Hamlet anyway so the original Lion King, outside of its music, also doesn't really accomplish anything either.

Yeah, it's an adaption of Hamlet. Except the plot, characters, themes, species, and story are all completely different. Okay yeah, the uncle kills the king and the nephew takes revenge, but apart from that the two works share almost nothing in common.

Also the nephew has a couple of friends whose purpose is to distract him from getting revenge. Though Timon and Pumbaa aren't working for Scar the same way Rosencrantz and Guildenstern work for Claudius. And thankfully there's no Simba killing pompous, ineffective advisor Zazu as Hamlet kills pompous ineffective advisor Polonius.

You know, the previous live action remakes all sought to address problems with the original. Cinderella tried to give some actual agency and character to Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast tried to make it look less like Stockholm Syndrome etc. But what can you build on or improve with Lion King? Its already great! Same with the Aladdin one there's been a teaser for, what exactly are you doing better than the original did?

My issue with Aladdin is the giant, Robin Williams shaped hole in the cast :(

Johnny Novgorod:
To recap: it's not live-action if everything's CG, shot-by-shot remakes are pointless, and the whole thing has such an identity void it can't reimagine anything or develop its own personality. Darth Vader as Mufasa and shot-by-shot rehash it is.

I wish they actually change up the whole story, especially the tone.

Because Wild Africa is not a happy-go-lucky heavanly place. It is brutal, wild, gritty, and un-merciful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PziDIb5_Qys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOnayowFVeA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPTZ714Dd54

So Hollywood looked at gaming's "remastered releases" where they charge full price for nothing more than a new coat of paint, and thought "Hmmm... let's do that!".

>Calling a CGI movie "live-action"

Muh sides. To Quote Drathnoxis:

And not live action. If it was live action, now that would be impressive!

Even Voxis Productions joked about how nonsensical a "live-action" Lion King remake would be

Gordon_4:

Asita:
Ok, first of all I feel obliged to correct you on the terminology. That is not live action. Live action is when a production uses actors and actresses rather than animation. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was live action. Homeward Bound was live action. Arsenic and Old Lace was live action. The Matrix was live action. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a mix of live action and animation. This Lion King is not live action, it's computer animation.

And on that note, I have to say that I'm getting tired of this trend with Disney. It was maybe novel the first few times, and at least Maleficent tried to shake things up a bit (not unlike Wicked, really, albeit less successfully). But this looks like it's just trying to recreate the original with CGI rather than traditional animation. And that accomplishes nothing.

The story is a partial adaptation of Hamlet anyway so the original Lion King, outside of its music, also doesn't really accomplish anything either.

Eh...it's more accurate to say that it took inspiration from Hamlet than it is to say that it's a "partial adaptation" of Hamlet. While there is some commonality in very broad strokes (the story focuses on exiled princes whose uncles usurped the throne), the stories are wildly different in tone, characters, and themes, and of course execution. Simba certainly lacks the - occasionally suicidal - manic depression that defines the eponymous Hamlet, Nala similarly has little in common with Ophelia, Scar is really more a synthesis of Iago (Othello) and Macbeth (Macbeth) than he is a variation of Claudius, etc. And yes, we know from interviews that Hamlet was an inspiration for the Lion King, but so too do we know from those interviews that the biblical stories of Moses and Joseph were also among the inspiration for the film.

With that said, "accomplished" was perhaps the wrong word. I should perhaps have said that I don't think it has made itself distinct enough to justify its existence. Simply changing the visual medium from one animation style to another is not sufficient. The question is what makes this one worth seeing if you've seen the original? What did they hope to do better than their predecessor?

Asita:

Gordon_4:

Asita:
Ok, first of all I feel obliged to correct you on the terminology. That is not live action. Live action is when a production uses actors and actresses rather than animation. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was live action. Homeward Bound was live action. Arsenic and Old Lace was live action. The Matrix was live action. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a mix of live action and animation. This Lion King is not live action, it's computer animation.

And on that note, I have to say that I'm getting tired of this trend with Disney. It was maybe novel the first few times, and at least Maleficent tried to shake things up a bit (not unlike Wicked, really, albeit less successfully). But this looks like it's just trying to recreate the original with CGI rather than traditional animation. And that accomplishes nothing.

The story is a partial adaptation of Hamlet anyway so the original Lion King, outside of its music, also doesn't really accomplish anything either.

Eh...it's more accurate to say that it took inspiration from Hamlet than it is to say that it's a "partial adaptation" of Hamlet. While there is some commonality in very broad strokes (the story focuses on exiled princes whose uncles usurped the throne), the stories are wildly different in tone, characters, and themes, and of course execution. Simba certainly lacks the - occasionally suicidal - manic depression that defines the eponymous Hamlet, Nala similarly has little in common with Ophelia, Scar is really more a synthesis of Iago (Othello) and Macbeth (Macbeth) than he is a variation of Claudius, etc. And yes, we know from interviews that Hamlet was an inspiration for the Lion King, but so too do we know from those interviews that the biblical stories of Moses and Joseph were also among the inspiration for the film.

With that said, "accomplished" was perhaps the wrong word. I should perhaps have said that I don't think it has made itself distinct enough to justify its existence. Simply changing the visual medium from one animation style to another is not sufficient. The question is what makes this one worth seeing if you've seen the original? What did they hope to do better than their predecessor?

My guess is the justifcation is that Beauty and the Beast made $1.2 billion at the box office despite everyone calling foul on the changes they made. I doubt the aproval meeting for this film went longer than fifteen minutes.

Gordon_4:

Asita:

Gordon_4:

The story is a partial adaptation of Hamlet anyway so the original Lion King, outside of its music, also doesn't really accomplish anything either.

Eh...it's more accurate to say that it took inspiration from Hamlet than it is to say that it's a "partial adaptation" of Hamlet. While there is some commonality in very broad strokes (the story focuses on exiled princes whose uncles usurped the throne), the stories are wildly different in tone, characters, and themes, and of course execution. Simba certainly lacks the - occasionally suicidal - manic depression that defines the eponymous Hamlet, Nala similarly has little in common with Ophelia, Scar is really more a synthesis of Iago (Othello) and Macbeth (Macbeth) than he is a variation of Claudius, etc. And yes, we know from interviews that Hamlet was an inspiration for the Lion King, but so too do we know from those interviews that the biblical stories of Moses and Joseph were also among the inspiration for the film.

With that said, "accomplished" was perhaps the wrong word. I should perhaps have said that I don't think it has made itself distinct enough to justify its existence. Simply changing the visual medium from one animation style to another is not sufficient. The question is what makes this one worth seeing if you've seen the original? What did they hope to do better than their predecessor?

My guess is the justifcation is that Beauty and the Beast made $1.2 billion at the box office despite everyone calling foul on the changes they made. I doubt the aproval meeting for this film went longer than fifteen minutes.

I appear to be having trouble conveying my intended meaning lately. When I say "justify its existence" I'm not referring to how why executives might want to do it. I'm talking in terms of how I closed that paragraph. Let's think for a minute as someone who has seen the original. Why should I want to see this one instead of rewatching the original? That is what I mean by justification for its existence.

Asita:

Gordon_4:

Asita:

Eh...it's more accurate to say that it took inspiration from Hamlet than it is to say that it's a "partial adaptation" of Hamlet. While there is some commonality in very broad strokes (the story focuses on exiled princes whose uncles usurped the throne), the stories are wildly different in tone, characters, and themes, and of course execution. Simba certainly lacks the - occasionally suicidal - manic depression that defines the eponymous Hamlet, Nala similarly has little in common with Ophelia, Scar is really more a synthesis of Iago (Othello) and Macbeth (Macbeth) than he is a variation of Claudius, etc. And yes, we know from interviews that Hamlet was an inspiration for the Lion King, but so too do we know from those interviews that the biblical stories of Moses and Joseph were also among the inspiration for the film.

With that said, "accomplished" was perhaps the wrong word. I should perhaps have said that I don't think it has made itself distinct enough to justify its existence. Simply changing the visual medium from one animation style to another is not sufficient. The question is what makes this one worth seeing if you've seen the original? What did they hope to do better than their predecessor?

My guess is the justifcation is that Beauty and the Beast made $1.2 billion at the box office despite everyone calling foul on the changes they made. I doubt the aproval meeting for this film went longer than fifteen minutes.

I appear to be having trouble conveying my intended meaning lately. When I say "justify its existence" I'm not referring to how why executives might want to do it. I'm talking in terms of how I closed that paragraph. Let's think for a minute as someone who has seen the original. Why should I want to see this one instead of rewatching the original? That is what I mean by justification for its existence.

A fair question. Well one possibility (stretch that it is) is that the remake here might also be including the newer songs and scenes that were invented for the stage show, bringing that part of the experience to people like me who have never seen it. So there's the possibility of that expansion of the content.

Another reason, again a stretch I admit, is that Disney is in the business of animation and as some posters have argued, this IS animation, just a different kind. Perhaps they saw value in literally remaking something they were familiar with in a new style of hyper realistic animation. Literal reanimation, as it were.

Look anyone who this this is merely a mercenary money making venture is unlikely to be swayed - and hell, they're not wrong - so there's the usual argument of vote with your wallet and just don't see the damn thing.

Samtemdo8:

Johnny Novgorod:
To recap: it's not live-action if everything's CG, shot-by-shot remakes are pointless, and the whole thing has such an identity void it can't reimagine anything or develop its own personality. Darth Vader as Mufasa and shot-by-shot rehash it is.

I wish they actually change up the whole story, especially the tone.

But they're not gonna. All they want is people clapping at the nostalgia cash-in. It's a vicious cycle at this point - anything that was popular 20 to 30 years ago gets dragged out and bedecked with technology's latest because people who were kids 20 to 30 years ago are the highest-grossing demographic.

I remember my parents pointing out how Disney never told original stories, everything was always based on fairy tales or children's books or the odd novel. Now all we get are copies of copies.

Johnny Novgorod:
I remember my parents pointing out how Disney never told original stories, everything was always based on fairy tales or children's books or the odd novel. Now all we get are copies of copies.

And that's why Disney is working so hard to make copyright permanent, because they don't want anyone else copying what they're copying.

They cut out Be Prepared which is the best Disney Villain song. Hard pass.

Gordon_4:

Asita:

Gordon_4:

My guess is the justifcation is that Beauty and the Beast made $1.2 billion at the box office despite everyone calling foul on the changes they made. I doubt the aproval meeting for this film went longer than fifteen minutes.

I appear to be having trouble conveying my intended meaning lately. When I say "justify its existence" I'm not referring to how why executives might want to do it. I'm talking in terms of how I closed that paragraph. Let's think for a minute as someone who has seen the original. Why should I want to see this one instead of rewatching the original? That is what I mean by justification for its existence.

A fair question. Well one possibility (stretch that it is) is that the remake here might also be including the newer songs and scenes that were invented for the stage show, bringing that part of the experience to people like me who have never seen it. So there's the possibility of that expansion of the content.

Another reason, again a stretch I admit, is that Disney is in the business of animation and as some posters have argued, this IS animation, just a different kind. Perhaps they saw value in literally remaking something they were familiar with in a new style of hyper realistic animation. Literal reanimation, as it were.

Look anyone who this this is merely a mercenary money making venture is unlikely to be swayed - and hell, they're not wrong - so there's the usual argument of vote with your wallet and just don't see the damn thing.

I understand the mercenary viewpoint. But I was a theater nerd. I was explicitly taught to think in these terms.

Kenbo Slice:
They cut out Be Prepared which is the best Disney Villain song. Hard pass.

THEY WHAT? Blasphemy!

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here