Jason_V
Senior HTF Member
I'd argue there is creativity. The reviews are stating the movie is gorgeous to look at. This could very well be a step forward for photo-realistic CGI (or whatever you want to call it).
Has there been any discussion on the color pallet on this movie?
Looks like a lot of brown.
I'd argue there is creativity. The reviews are stating the movie is gorgeous to look at. This could very well be a step forward for photo-realistic CGI (or whatever you want to call it).
I'd argue there is creativity.
Technical creativity, yes. I was referring to the sum of the parts of the finished film.
That's craftsmanship creativity rather than narrative creativity.
If it is a shot for shot remake then why is it almost 30 minutes longer? 30 minutes is more then just a few extra shots here and there so, what has been added?
Luke Bonanno said:The very next scene is perhaps the one that more accurately conveys the nature of this production. In the original film, there was a shot of a scurrying mouse who ended up in the paw of the evil Scar. It ran a few seconds. In Favreau's version, the same thing happens but it goes on for almost a minute as that mouse you struggle to believe is completely a digital creation winds up in the possession of Scar, giving him an opportunity to deliver a monologue on the way of the world.
Snow White wasn't particularly ground breaking, story wise. It was groundbreaking technically.
It may be conceptually following the plot beat for beat but there are certain plot points that can be elaborated on ala Beauty and the Beast.If it is a shot for shot remake then why is it almost 30 minutes longer? 30 minutes is more then just a few extra shots here and there so, what has been added?
What else could I have meant?You mean, the actual film...right?
What else could I have meant?
I don't "blame" Disney for giving the people what they want. Personally, I've liked the live action remakes (though I own none of them on disc but I have all the animated pictures) but if the remakes didn't make money, Disney would stop making them tomorrow.Yep. Disney isn't interested in creativity here, just formula, and this formula film will make a bazillion dollars. They'll only stop churning out this crap if people stop going to the theater to see it.
Has there been any discussion on the color pallet on this movie?
Very little bright colors in the previews that I’ve seen.
Matt Singer said:Favreau’s The Lion King feels like a bad Xerox of Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff’s; the colors aren’t as sharp, the characters aren’t as crisply performed, and everything feels a little fuzzier and more diffuse. While the traditionally animated Lion King ran a sleek 88 minutes, the update spreads the exact same story across two full, lifeless hours by adding a new song, more dialogue, and one sequence that follows a tuft of Simba’s fur through the wilderness as another illustration of the circle of life. The stiff, muted animal performances are matched by the general look of the film, credited to cinematographer Caleb Deschanel, which swaps all the vibrant emerald, ochre, and sapphire of the 2D animated Lion King for a palette of brown, tan, khaki, and additional brown. The new film is a lot less fun to look at than the old one.
Luke Bonanno said:Little gags that brightened up the original are mostly discarded here in a favor of a more unified and somber tone.