1. Sign-up to become a member, and most of the ads you see will disappear. It only takes 30 seconds to sign up, so join the discussion today!
    Dismiss Notice

The Lion King (2019)

Discussion in 'Movies' started by Jake Lipson, Nov 2, 2017.

Tags:
  1. Sam Posten

    Sam Posten Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1997
    Messages:
    26,481
    Likes Received:
    4,441
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
    Real Name:
    Sam Posten
    Pointless remake but it was still entertaining. Weren’t they supposed to cut “Be prepared”? It was shortened but still there.
     
    benbess likes this.
  2. Message #202 of 288 Jul 18, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019
    Chris Will

    Chris Will Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,267
    Likes Received:
    463
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Montgomery, AL
    Real Name:
    Chris WIlliams
    Just got back from a 2D IMAX showing.

    I agree with many critics, it’s a technical marvel but, they sucked all the heart and soul out of the original story. The decision to go photo real is its undoing. Mufasa’s death is the perfect example. Simba’s face looks the same as it does during the rest of the movie. No sad or mournful expressions, not even a tear. Made that scene very heartless with no emotional punch.

    The lions’ mouths move so little that in medium and long shots it is hard to always make out their movement, even in IMAX. This makes it feel like the dialogue is narration at times and not the characters. This also ruins the fun of all the songs. It is just really odd to watch at times. I just think it was a bad decision to go photo real at the expense of more visually emotional characters.

    Also, it’s too long. Those 30 extra minutes add nothing and it feels 30 minutes longer.

    The whole time I was wondering why I didn’t just stay home and watch the original. This one isn’t a horrible movie but, it’s not a very good one either.

    I’d give it 2 1/2 stars out of 5. Just watch the original, you’ll have more fun.
     
  3. Jeff Adkins

    Jeff Adkins Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 1998
    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    527
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Real Name:
    Jeff Adkins
    That pretty much sums up my thoughts as well.

    Even though Aladdin was flawed, it's a much better film than this.
     
    Chris Will likes this.
  4. Message #204 of 288 Jul 19, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2019
    Jake Lipson

    Jake Lipson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    7,386
    Likes Received:
    4,256
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Jake Lipson
    There was a rumor to that effect a while back, but then they confirmed that it was going to be in there. As limp as it was, they might as well have cut it, but I suspect they felt obligated to keep a version of it because that's an iconic scene from the original.

    I wanted to see this not because I feel like The Lion King needed a remake, but because I wanted to know what they would do with it. And now I know.

    I think this is exactly the movie Disney asked Jon Favreau to make, and he delivered what he told them he would do. It feels to me like after they saw how great The Jungle Book turned out, some executive said, "Hey, can you do this to The Lion King?" and he agreed. There isn't really a creative reason for it to exist above and beyond the technology. It's not as colorful or fun or emotional. But it also doesn't really mess with what already worked.

    I said in May that I felt very "meh" about the new Aladdin when I saw it. Aladdin has not aged well for me, as the more I have thought about it and discussed it, the more I have come to despise it for actively messing with and screwing up something that I love.

    I liked this way more than Aladdin. I don't think I'll ever see it again, but I appreciate that Favreau at least didn't do anything stupid or objectionable. He knows how to make a polished movie, and this is far more than baseline competent. It lacks a lot of the flavor that made the original so endearing, but at least it's well-made and doesn't give the original a bad name. I think this is close to the best-case scenario for what could be reasonably expected from a "realistic" version of this story. That doesn't mean I really approve of it, but it's not worth getting worked up about either.

    I'll stick to the original from now on. But this could have been a lot worse and I doubt much better.
     
    Sam Posten likes this.
  5. Thomas Newton

    Thomas Newton Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    222
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Or maybe they're thinking ahead to video. Using 1.85:1 means that when they make the 1.77:1 home video release, there won't be any "black bars" on most HDTVs.
     
  6. Jake Lipson

    Jake Lipson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    7,386
    Likes Received:
    4,256
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Jake Lipson
    I doubt this is a concern. Favreau has made 2.35:1 films in the past, including the Iron Man films which Disney owns. Toy Story 4 is in scope even though its predecessors are all 1.77:1. It's not like Disney is opposed to releasing a movie with "black bars."
     
    Tino likes this.
  7. Patrick Sun

    Patrick Sun Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    39,181
    Likes Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    I got bored after a while. It felt like watching some episode of an animal kingdom show, and then some folks super-imposed dialogue to tell their story. It was just tiresome, not engaging at all. And the songs were kinda ghastly performed. Also didn't like Donald Glover as grown-up Simba, his voice acting just doesn't bring much to the table.

    Overall, I give it an "okay at matinee pricing".
     
  8. Message #208 of 288 Jul 19, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
    steve jaros

    steve jaros Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 1997
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    255
    Trophy Points:
    610
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Real Name:
    Steve
    Saw it today with the wife, we're both big fans of TLK.

    I was underwhelmed. I thought the pacing was wrong, several key transitions in the movie were rushed and felt abrupt, and on the other hand it was padded with 30 extra minutes that added nothing. The director gets a D+.

    Also, I found the voices to be in every case inferior to the voices on the original movie. Even JEJ felt flat, and he's the Voice of God.

    Of course, I was still largely entertained, because it is "The Lion King" so you can only mess that up so much.

    There was no reason to make this other than money, which of course is why Disney (and other big studios) exists so I guess that is reason enough. But IMO this is the least inspiring of the spate of animated classic remakes.
     
    Jake Lipson and benbess like this.
  9. Jake Lipson

    Jake Lipson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    7,386
    Likes Received:
    4,256
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Jake Lipson
    Box Office Mojo is reporting an official figure of $23 million in Thursday preview grosses.

    Deadline is projecting between a $185 million to $200 million weekend as of right now, which decimates the previous July record of $169 million set by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2.

    And that is why this movie exists.
     
    Sam Favate and TravisR like this.
  10. Jake Lipson

    Jake Lipson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    7,386
    Likes Received:
    4,256
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Jake Lipson
     
    Johnny Angell, Sam Favate and benbess like this.
  11. Sam Favate

    Sam Favate Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,658
    Likes Received:
    3,839
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Sam Favate
    They sure do get credit for their technical prowess. The animals and the scenery were great. There were a few times when I thought the animals looked unnatural, but more often than not they looked real. The scenery always looked real (I'm told there is only one real shot in the movie).

    But the movie itself is what I always feared it would be, a shot-for-shot remake of the classic original. The story, of course, is great, drawing from Hamlet as it does, but try as I might, I just don't see the need for this movie. Sure, it may be old-fashioned, but I want to see an artistic reason for a movie to exist, and I don't here.

    I also don't think this one matches the fun of the original, and I'm not just talking about the jokes and comedy that are missing. It lacks the color palate and visual warmth of the original. All those bright oranges and yellows are replaced with browns and grays. It's just not as visually interesting - kinda like how Star Trek: The Original Series had the crew wearing bright primary colors in well-lit colorful rooms, but by the time you get to Star Trek: Voyager the crew is wearing mostly all black in dimly-lit gray rooms. One grabs your eye; the other doesn't.

    I can't fault the voice work. Donald Glover, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Beyonce, Billy Eichner, John Oliver -- all terrific. James Earl Jones was obviously the one that they thought couldn't be replaced, and with good reason. But that should have been a clue that the original movie couldn't be beat, which it still can't. (Which is not to say the property doesn't have life in it - the Broadway play is great and has been thrilling audiences for years. Likewise, the Disney theme parks have Lion King shows and attractions that prove it has plenty of life in it.) Like I said, they get an A for effort, but a failing grade for making a Lion King movie that's the worst thing it could be, forgettable.
     
  12. Colin Jacobson

    Colin Jacobson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,553
    Likes Received:
    2,581
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Agree with the opinions that the movie is technically astonishing but it lacks heart, as the photoreal animals don't have the expressiveness to pull off emotions.

    Virtually all of the actors were better in the original, except for the guy who did Mufasa - he's MUCH better than whoever played the part in 1994!
     
    Jeff Adkins, DP 70 and Jake Lipson like this.
  13. Message #213 of 288 Jul 22, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2019
    DP 70

    DP 70 Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    412
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Real Name:
    Derek
    I did not really like this version but the Dolby Atmos mix was fab though.
     
  14. Jake Lipson

    Jake Lipson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    7,386
    Likes Received:
    4,256
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Jake Lipson
    From Deadline:

    https://deadline.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-weekend-box-office-july-records-1202648944/

    The comparison to Walt seems like a rationalization.

    Creatively, I feel like the "Do we dare?" conversation should have been a "Should we?" conversation. I would have voted "no" from a creative standpoint.

    But the money speaks for itself. $191.8 million weekend actual.
     
  15. Elizabeth S

    Elizabeth S Producer

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,825
    Likes Received:
    264
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Real Name:
    Elizabeth S
    I enjoyed the movie and its photo realism. Of course, I've never seen the original and have no basis for comparison. (I do own it and am more interested in watching it now.) I've never liked the songs from the movie, and this version of "Circle of Life" was even worse. Also can't stand "Can You Feel the Love Tonight".
     
  16. Message #216 of 288 Jul 22, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
    Jake Lipson

    Jake Lipson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    7,386
    Likes Received:
    4,256
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Jake Lipson
    :excl:

    The Lion King is a cultural touchstone.

    How have you managed to avoid it for 25 years? Especially if you own it?

    (This is a serious question.)
     
    Johnny Angell likes this.
  17. Jake Lipson

    Jake Lipson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    7,386
    Likes Received:
    4,256
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Jake Lipson
    This came up on my YouTube homepage. Gotta say, this guy's not wrong.

     
    Nick*Z, GlennF and Simon Massey like this.
  18. Johnny Angell

    Johnny Angell Played With Dinosaurs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1998
    Messages:
    10,697
    Likes Received:
    3,269
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Real Name:
    Johnny Angell
    I haven't seen the movie, but all the criticisms are similar. "The photo realism doesn't work. It's great, but doesn't work." Maybe Disney should have taken a hint from the stage production. One could argue the stage production was more...not cartoony, but more stylized than the original movie, perhaps further from reality than the original movie. Basically, two versions that are not realistic, but successful.
     
  19. Jake Lipson

    Jake Lipson Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    7,386
    Likes Received:
    4,256
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Jake Lipson
    The stage show works because it accepts that the audience knows this is not real. They know you are suspending your disbelief for the show and they want to show you how it's done. You see the masks, and you also see the actor's face under the mask. You see the puppet, but you also see the puppetry. The show revels in allowing you to see the human craftsmanship being used to tell the story for you.

    In contrast to that, the remake movie wants to trick you. It wants you to think that these are real animals; it doesn't want you to suspend your disbelief because it wants you to believe everything you're seeing. And in large part it is successful, except for when you get distracted by the supposedly real animals opening their mouths and saying English words that real animals aren't designed to be able to say. But because they want to hide all the craftsmanship and make it look as realistic as possible, you don't get the effect of the human touch coming through.

    They are two fundamentally different approaches to storytelling.
     
  20. Lord Dalek

    Lord Dalek Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,306
    Likes Received:
    1,362
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Real Name:
    Joel Henderson
    That doesn't make him any less of an irrelevant Youtube yahoo.
     

Share This Page

Movie information in first post provided by The Movie Database