The Lion King (2019) (1 Viewer)

[Lord Dalek]

Eh I would've preferred if they had done a remake of the OG Lion King "teaser".

 

[Jake Lipson]

Eh I would've preferred if they had done a remake of the OG Lion King "teaser".

You mean just show the entire Circle of Life sequence now?

 

[Johnny Angell]

Comparing the remake of The Jungle Book to the remake of The Lion King doesn’t work for me. As mentioned the original Disney JB is much older and not a seminal film like the original LK. There is a built in demand for this remake to strongly resemble the remake. I will be very disappointed if this remake doesn’t have an opening that is very much like the original. That opening song still gives me chills when it opens the movie.

 

[Lord Dalek]

You mean just show the entire Circle of Life sequence now?

Yeah do it. Let's see how shot for shot it is.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Based on the trailer, the kids are going to love this remake!

 

[Johnny Angell]

Based on the trailer, the kids are going to love this remake!

And some of us adults.

 

[Jake Lipson]

There is a built in demand for this remake to strongly resemble the remake.

Well, I'm sure it will resemble itself.

I obviously agree that there are iconic parts of the original to which the remake must pay homage, and Circle of Life is certainly one of them, but if the entire movie (or even a majority of it) ends up being shot-for-shot, that would be sort of insulting/pointless. So it's a fine line to walk. We'll see how they do.

the original Disney JB is much older and not a seminal film like the original LK.

I would strongly disagree. The '67 Jungle Book is absolutely a seminal film. However, its age, as well as the fact that it was an adaptation to begin with, did give them a certain amount of license to reinterpret it that is different than with The Lion King.

 

[dpippel]

I realize I'm stating the obvious here, but after watching the trailer this looks like just another Disney money grab. There is, in my mind, absolutely no other reason for this film to exist. I have zero desire to see it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I realize I'm stating the obvious here, but after watching the trailer this looks like just another Disney money grab.

Well, yes, for sure. However, it is at least a money grab that they have spent time and effort on. If they're going to do money grabs, which of course they are, I would much rather have this than more direct-to-video cheapquels like they were pumping out in the '90s and early 2000s with the air of cheapness around them. At least these remakes are being produced with care and respect. The artists who worked on the direct-to-video craze, especially the earlier ones, were largely not given the resources to do much, and as cash grabs go, this is better.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Disney put on Facebook today:

To our entire pride: Thank you for helping the teaser trailer for The Lion King become the most-viewed Disney trailer debut ever as it reached a record-breaking 224.6 million global views in 24 hours!

And I'm sure that's exactly what it exists for.

However, the next time we get a trailer for it, which will probably be in March in front of Captain Marvel and/or Dumbo, I think it would be wise of Disney to focus on other, non-replica footage, assuming such footage exists

 

[Malcolm R]

I realize I'm stating the obvious here, but after watching the trailer this looks like just another Disney money grab. There is, in my mind, absolutely no other reason for this film to exist. I have zero desire to see it.

I'm just amazed that they continue to get away with calling these "live action" when they're still 99% CGI. It's just a different style of animation, but it's still animation.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I'm just amazed that they continue to get away with calling these "live action" when they're still 99% CGI. It's just a different style of animation, but it's still animation.

I think that until a term is invented to describe this kind of animation and the general audience understands it, this kind of movie will be called live action.

How was avatar presented to the general audience?

 

[Wayne_j]

And I'm pretty sure that this one is 100% CGI.

 

[Jake Lipson]

And I'm pretty sure that this one is 100% CGI.

It has to be, because unlike even The Jungle Book which had a human actor playing Mowgli, there are no human roles in The Lion King. So essentially it is an animated remake that is being promoted as live-action because "We made it in live-action" sounds like a better justification for remaking it to the uninitiated masses than "We made it again in more realistic animation."

Simba in 1994 was far more expressive than what we saw of Simba in this trailer, because attempted realism with animals means they're inherently not as expressive. So yeah, it may look more like a real lion, but the original got more emotion across.

 

[Joel Fontenot]

Absolutely not. The Jungle Book was nowhere near a shot-for-shot remake. Favreau made it into more of an action-adventure film, whereas the 1967 version is a far looser comedy with an extremely episodic structure.

However, The Jungle Book was released 49 years after Walt's original, which itself was an adaptation of a source text that had been adapted many times. Remaking The Lion King, which although it borrows from Hamlet and Bambi is not technically based on any particular source material, and doing it in the year that the original film turns 25, is a very different situation.

Like I said in my post earlier today, this film is in a rough position. There are a lot more expectations around what it is than with The Jungle Book. Change it too much and people will be mad. Change it too little and people will wonder why they bothered.

The Jungle Book, as something that has existed outside of Walt's animated version, is open to several different interpretations by its nature. The Lion King is essentially a perfect and definitive film as-is, so there's less need to deviate from it -- but also, if you don't, then the "why" question appears. So in choosing to remake it, Disney has taken on a decidedly different challenge than The Jungle Book, even though they're using the same director and the same technique.

In response to the highlighted line above, you should include "Kimba the White Lion" as in influence, too (though, I know Disney denies this).

 

[Jake Lipson]

you should include "Kimba the White Lion" as in influence, too

I'm not going to get into the debate about Kimba here as it is not relevant to what I was expressing. Whether or not it was an influence does not change my point from the post you quoted above one bit.

 

[Mike Frezon]

 

[Jake Lipson]

Well, apparently there will be something new, since Amy Sedaris is playing a new role.

Under the purview of director Jon Favreau, Sedaris will play an elephant shrew — so named for long noses that resemble elephant trunks, the tiny mammal is native to Africa and known for its top speed.

I've never heard of an elephant shrew. In case you haven't either, here's the Wikipedia article, with pictures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_shrew

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/lion-king-amy-sedaris-1203036261/

Despite the wording, I expect she has probably been working on this for a while and Disney is just announcing it now. If she were actually only starting to work on it now, that would be strange given that it comes out in July.

It's interesting that they decided to announce this piece of news through the trades on the Monday after the trailer release, instead of just putting her name in the list with the others in the trailer.

 

[SamT]

Instead of asking how much can be kept the same, it’s time to ask how much can be made different.

 

[TonyD]

The trailer is creepy for me.
Seeing all the realistic looking animals acting like humans
Bowing down for Kimba I mean Simba is just weird.

When it’s a regular cartoon it fits but trying to buy into real looking animals doing those things is a tough one for me at this point.