Davy Jones
Sr Member
Just saw Disney jump the shark I think.
An hour ago it was announced that the next animated classic to get remade in live action will be the Lion King.
I have my own opinion about remaking these classics but let's focus on the actual "live action" part.
The Lion King has no humans in it. It can be assumed that all the animals will be animated CGI. It is almost a certainty that since no real people will have to interact with sets or props that all environments will be animated.
So in what sense is this "live action"? Isn't it just an animated remake of the The Lion King done in a different animation style?
I know The Jungle Book already presented a bit of this paradox but at least the kid was real.
I just see these remakes as cash grabs now. They have some neat ideas to explore by remaking certain films with real actors, some real environments, and realistically rendered CGI characters. But it seems like they are actually much more interested in trying realistic style animation for all their iconic traditionally cartooned characters. When you have movies on the slate like Dumbo (little featured human characters, tons of animals) , The Little Mermaid (human characters with tons of animals) and The Lion King (no humans, tons of animals) it just seems like odd choices. Disney knows people will see them. They know they will like them because they like being reminded of familiar things, and they know they will make another billion for each.
Not saying it's a bad business decision, it just makes me wonder why they are so quick to want to replace their beloved classic characters with uncanny looking, decidedly not cuddly, mutants that are "live action"
It's all about spectacle I guess. People will go and see what they haven't seen before, even if it's bad.8
An hour ago it was announced that the next animated classic to get remade in live action will be the Lion King.
I have my own opinion about remaking these classics but let's focus on the actual "live action" part.
The Lion King has no humans in it. It can be assumed that all the animals will be animated CGI. It is almost a certainty that since no real people will have to interact with sets or props that all environments will be animated.
So in what sense is this "live action"? Isn't it just an animated remake of the The Lion King done in a different animation style?
I know The Jungle Book already presented a bit of this paradox but at least the kid was real.
I just see these remakes as cash grabs now. They have some neat ideas to explore by remaking certain films with real actors, some real environments, and realistically rendered CGI characters. But it seems like they are actually much more interested in trying realistic style animation for all their iconic traditionally cartooned characters. When you have movies on the slate like Dumbo (little featured human characters, tons of animals) , The Little Mermaid (human characters with tons of animals) and The Lion King (no humans, tons of animals) it just seems like odd choices. Disney knows people will see them. They know they will like them because they like being reminded of familiar things, and they know they will make another billion for each.
Not saying it's a bad business decision, it just makes me wonder why they are so quick to want to replace their beloved classic characters with uncanny looking, decidedly not cuddly, mutants that are "live action"
It's all about spectacle I guess. People will go and see what they haven't seen before, even if it's bad.8