Davy Jones
Sr Member
I agree. No emotion, plus I am finding it hard to tell most of the lions apart.
The Lion King (Post-release)
- Thread starter Davy Jones
- Start date
Just came home from watching it. I went in with low expectations and still came back a little disappointed. In my opinion, the actors who played Scar, Simba (Older), and Nala (Older) simply didn't put any emotion into to their voices. Donald Glover and Beyonce' sounded like they were just reading lines. Even James Earl Jones didn't give Mufasa the same level of grit in his voice like he did in the animated movie.
Timon and Pumba were okay, but some of their jokes just didn't have the timing down. John Oliver as Zazu missed the mark several times as well. The hyenas were pretty good, but I really wanted to see crazy Ed. Rafiki's character was a bit let down, especially at the most pivotal part of the movie. Simba's realization that he needed to return was just so....blase.
I'd say don't waste your money on theater tickets and wait until it comes out on either blu-ray or cable. Kids will likely enjoy it, but it doesn't bring out the child in us grown up the way the original movie did.
By the way; I've met Jon Favreau and spent some time talking to him about movie making. I love a lot of his work, especially Iron Man and The Jungle Book. I think he's a sharp director, so I don't know how much of the flaws with this film are the result of the studio dipping their hands into the production.
Timon and Pumba were okay, but some of their jokes just didn't have the timing down. John Oliver as Zazu missed the mark several times as well. The hyenas were pretty good, but I really wanted to see crazy Ed. Rafiki's character was a bit let down, especially at the most pivotal part of the movie. Simba's realization that he needed to return was just so....blase.
I'd say don't waste your money on theater tickets and wait until it comes out on either blu-ray or cable. Kids will likely enjoy it, but it doesn't bring out the child in us grown up the way the original movie did.
By the way; I've met Jon Favreau and spent some time talking to him about movie making. I love a lot of his work, especially Iron Man and The Jungle Book. I think he's a sharp director, so I don't know how much of the flaws with this film are the result of the studio dipping their hands into the production.
AnubisGuard
Master Member
There's an artist I follow who put up a blog post today about taking her daughter to see it, and they walked out after an hour fifteen. She says her daughter was bored out of her mind and kept asking when it would be over.
So, that's one kid at least who didn't.
AnubisGuard
Master Member
How did they even manage that, anyway? I've read it's basically word-for-word a copy of the original, and that a number of the songs are cut down considerably. So where does the extra run time come from? 30 minutes of Pumbaa farting?
Well, for an example...
In the original, Simba drops to the ground, a cloud of dust kicks up and is carried through the air to Rafiki... who catches it, and realizes Simba is alive.
In this version...
Simba drops.
- A clump of his hair is kicked up and floats through the air.
-a bird picks up the hair and brings it to it's nest.
- another bird throws it out of the nest cuz this bird knows better how to decorate.
- the hair is picked up and flown through the air, until it lands in a tree where a Giraffe eats it.
- the Giraffe poops it out, cuz next we see it, it is being rolled by a beetle in a piece of poo
- the poo rolls down the hill and breaks open, the hair falls out.
- an ant picks it up and carries it to rafiki's tree.
SIGH!
Even the mouse scar pounces on at the beginning gets a weird moment of story walking around to the point I was thinking "why are we following this mouse?"
They try not to make Kids animated over 90 minutes cuz kids get bored. I'm currently working on cutting Adams family under 90....
Why they thought, after looking at the PROOF OF CONCEPT (the original flick), that this story needed an extra 30 minutes, is beyond me...
In the original, Simba drops to the ground, a cloud of dust kicks up and is carried through the air to Rafiki... who catches it, and realizes Simba is alive.
In this version...
Simba drops.
- A clump of his hair is kicked up and floats through the air.
-a bird picks up the hair and brings it to it's nest.
- another bird throws it out of the nest cuz this bird knows better how to decorate.
- the hair is picked up and flown through the air, until it lands in a tree where a Giraffe eats it.
- the Giraffe poops it out, cuz next we see it, it is being rolled by a beetle in a piece of poo
- the poo rolls down the hill and breaks open, the hair falls out.
- an ant picks it up and carries it to rafiki's tree.
SIGH!
Even the mouse scar pounces on at the beginning gets a weird moment of story walking around to the point I was thinking "why are we following this mouse?"
They try not to make Kids animated over 90 minutes cuz kids get bored. I'm currently working on cutting Adams family under 90....
Why they thought, after looking at the PROOF OF CONCEPT (the original flick), that this story needed an extra 30 minutes, is beyond me...
AnubisGuard
Master Member
You're having me on. Seriously?
Nope. It was completely bizarre.
Young Simba's walk away from the pride is way longer as well, but now that the lion looks closer to real, you question how far he actually walked, and how he survived. Those thoughts don't occur when he's cartoony.
Seth Rogan as Pumba worked for me, that's about it.
And I looooove the original Lion King. This was a bummer.
AnubisGuard
Master Member
Remember when Jon Favreau made Elf? I remember Elf. It was really good. I wonder what went wrong.
This sequence sounds like a typical modern day concept meeting in Hollywood.
ahem
Attachments
-
67407233_3041516295888480_541995636912816128_n.jpg -
67401631_3041516262555150_149077558929915904_n.jpg -
67064349_3041516225888487_8876259926817636352_n.jpg -
67233215_3041516192555157_7031682906112131072_n.jpg -
67390384_3041516125888497_1155254174359748608_n.jpg -
67366713_3041516065888503_5745899740709519360_n.jpg -
67225620_3041516015888508_1591625355599282176_n.jpg -
67354016_3041515965888513_5343531227141898240_n.jpg -
67630992_3041515875888522_8648598278985744384_n.jpg
I don’t dismiss every Disney live action remake as a shameless cash grab. I believe most live action remakes coming from Disney are creatively defensible projects - possibly until now. I'm not such a purist that I can't appreciate how live action might enhance the story of the animated original but this production is fundamentally flawed in conception.
The Lion King is mostly recreated scene for scene - which might just speak to how lean the original screenplay was but it also makes this movie seem unnecessary because it brings little else to the table. In much of this the live action actually weakens the story. In part it's because the lush color palette of the animated Lion King gave way to the drab reality of live action. In the absence of the original this is not a bad movie at all but, in the shadow of the original, it suffers.
Talking animals worked much better for Jungle Book. In comparison, The Lion King's decision to stick to photorealism weakened the drama. Jungle Book's central character being human allowed us to attach to his expressiveness - the animal characters fell more into secondary roles which just makes it a different retelling of that story than the animated film where the animals were essentially like human characters. But The Lion King whose principal characters were all animals suffered a bit because their ability to emote was necessarily limited.
With the muting of color and the blunting of facial expressions a lot of the songs were weakened as well.
But it was not all bad. The opening Circle of Life sequence is a case where live action was actually quite good. In this case the spectacle of live action was arguably even more beautiful than the original and the song, not reliant on facial expression, was better in every way than the original. The wildebeest stampede sequence was also an improvement in the way it was cut and framed (also being live action) so there was a much greater sense of peril. I was still engaged with the characters and got choked up with the death of the father. It's not a catastrophe but as a whole creative work the strengths weren't enough to outweigh the core flaws.
If you have a small kid who loved the animated original Lion King it's still worth taking them to watch this. My 8 year old daughter, who isn't encumbered by the pessimism of adulthood, had a blast. Ultimately I was able to appreciate the film through her eyes and enjoy what was in front of me. My daughter was singing out loud with the soundtrack and, instead of people getting annoyed, a few of them also sang along. We also had back row seats so we got up on the floor or stood on our (reclining) chairs and danced and improvised animal gestures. During the father's death she snuggled with me and pulled my paw over her shoulder. If the question is if I had a good time with this movie, the honest answer is that it was one of the best movie theater experiences I've ever had.
If you have a kid who loves The Lion King - get back row seats.
The Lion King is mostly recreated scene for scene - which might just speak to how lean the original screenplay was but it also makes this movie seem unnecessary because it brings little else to the table. In much of this the live action actually weakens the story. In part it's because the lush color palette of the animated Lion King gave way to the drab reality of live action. In the absence of the original this is not a bad movie at all but, in the shadow of the original, it suffers.
Talking animals worked much better for Jungle Book. In comparison, The Lion King's decision to stick to photorealism weakened the drama. Jungle Book's central character being human allowed us to attach to his expressiveness - the animal characters fell more into secondary roles which just makes it a different retelling of that story than the animated film where the animals were essentially like human characters. But The Lion King whose principal characters were all animals suffered a bit because their ability to emote was necessarily limited.
With the muting of color and the blunting of facial expressions a lot of the songs were weakened as well.
But it was not all bad. The opening Circle of Life sequence is a case where live action was actually quite good. In this case the spectacle of live action was arguably even more beautiful than the original and the song, not reliant on facial expression, was better in every way than the original. The wildebeest stampede sequence was also an improvement in the way it was cut and framed (also being live action) so there was a much greater sense of peril. I was still engaged with the characters and got choked up with the death of the father. It's not a catastrophe but as a whole creative work the strengths weren't enough to outweigh the core flaws.
If you have a small kid who loved the animated original Lion King it's still worth taking them to watch this. My 8 year old daughter, who isn't encumbered by the pessimism of adulthood, had a blast. Ultimately I was able to appreciate the film through her eyes and enjoy what was in front of me. My daughter was singing out loud with the soundtrack and, instead of people getting annoyed, a few of them also sang along. We also had back row seats so we got up on the floor or stood on our (reclining) chairs and danced and improvised animal gestures. During the father's death she snuggled with me and pulled my paw over her shoulder. If the question is if I had a good time with this movie, the honest answer is that it was one of the best movie theater experiences I've ever had.
If you have a kid who loves The Lion King - get back row seats.
Last edited:
Not necessarily.
OK. It was "necessitated" by their creative decision to make each frame photorealistic. It worked for Jungle Book which completely eclipsed Serkis' Mowgli film with emotive beasts. But I agree the CG animated caricatures (like with Zootopia) would have been a really nice move.
kristen jones
Master Member
the song, not reliant on facial expression, was better in every way than the original.Not in EVERY way... Elton John's vocals were WAAAY better.
But I agree 100% with the rest of your post
sbaxter
Sr Member
Elton John doesn't perform on the version of "Circle of Life" heard at the beginning of the animated film. That was Lebo M. and Carmen Twillie. Elton's version was only on the soundtrack release.
SSB
Can only summarize the film as an epic fail.
The Lady and the Tramp one looks to be more of that.
Stop giving these people money.
The Lady and the Tramp one looks to be more of that.
Stop giving these people money.
CT1138
Sr Member
I thought it was just okay. Too few recognizable voice actors, and the ones they had didn't have the inflections right on the lines. And it was so shot for shot, they could have just dubbed the original lines into the movie and called it a day. Funny enough, John Oliver as Zazu was probably the closest to sounding like the original cast, though he's still no Rowan Atkinson.
And the facial animation was sooooo stiff. Like, the mouths looked like hand puppets with the jaw flapping up and down. I know it's difficult to maintain the realistic tone they were going for in the CGI, but still be expressive, but goddamn were the facial animation wooden. I mean use the ears for ******'s sake! Like a house cat, or something, mimic that! When the lion is scared, make the ears go flat, when they're feeling courageous make them stick out more. People are able to recognize and read these nonverbal cues. Use them! There was none of that. Just the same wooden expressions throughout. The animation when Nala was chasing Pumbaa was outstanding, though. Looked like an actual lion chase!
My Dad thought the same, and said that he liked the animated version better because it used more expressions.
And the facial animation was sooooo stiff. Like, the mouths looked like hand puppets with the jaw flapping up and down. I know it's difficult to maintain the realistic tone they were going for in the CGI, but still be expressive, but goddamn were the facial animation wooden. I mean use the ears for ******'s sake! Like a house cat, or something, mimic that! When the lion is scared, make the ears go flat, when they're feeling courageous make them stick out more. People are able to recognize and read these nonverbal cues. Use them! There was none of that. Just the same wooden expressions throughout. The animation when Nala was chasing Pumbaa was outstanding, though. Looked like an actual lion chase!
My Dad thought the same, and said that he liked the animated version better because it used more expressions.
Similar threads
