Current Events > Were they serious with the live action Lion King movie?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Legit feels like a Discovery channel doc with voiceovers

Discovery Channel docs actually look lifelike.

The Lion King looked like everyone was taxidermied and just hadn't realized it yet.

It made $1.663 billion so yeah, they were very serious.

Yeah, essentially what they were going for was to make it as "live action" as they could since the movie is basically CGI. Hence why, just like most animals in real life, don't have that much facial expressions and emotions which ended up making the movie feel kind of dead.

Prestoff posted...

Yeah, essentially what they were going for was to make it as "live action" as they could since the movie is basically CGI. Hence why, just like most animals in real life, don't have that much facial expressions and emotions which ended up making the movie feel kind of dead.

actual lions are more expressive than that

I was confused as fuck it was being advertised as live action and thought the world was going insane because no it wasn't.

I don't get how they actually cut songs and it was still 30 mins longer than the original.

"Live action" lol

Should have just use live action and animatronic animals with voice acting like Babe.

I didn't hate the 2019 Lion King film, but I expected better considering a few years prior Jon Favreau gave us The Jungle Book was which pretty good.

lilORANG posted...

I don't get how they actually cut songs and it was still 30 mins longer than the original.

it's because everything takes longer.

There's a several minute sequence with that mouse Scar catches at the beginning. Simba's fur reached Rafiki in seconds in the animated version, and after a three minute rube goldberg sequence in the remake. The film fucking plots because everything just takes longer.

Also the 4 minutes spent letting Beyonce show off an out-of-place new songle.

KCJ5062 posted...

I didn't hate the 2019 Lion King film, but I expected better considering a few years prior Jon Favreau gave us The Jungle Book was which pretty good.

The difference is that he wanted to do the first one. Disney pressured him into doing The Lion King. I can understand a director not wanting to get stuck making talking animal movies.

Real lions show more emotion than what they did. This movie has little artistic integrity, and is visually worse in every way from the original. The music is also worse.

DarkBuster22904 posted...

The Lion King looked like everyone was taxidermied and just hadn't realized it yet.

ohdamn

I enjoyed the movie, it gave us a live action feel for the lion king. It delivered exactly as advertised.

I dont get why everyone is such a hater.

Bleuets posted...

I enjoyed the movie, it gave us a live action feel for the lion king. It delivered exactly as advertised.

I dont get why everyone is such a hater.

Because

1). It doesnt look realistic. Lions are more emotive irl than the ones in the movie. For a movie trying to be realistic, they dropped the ball by making everything really bland. Kind of like ps3 brown and grey shooter era.

2). Everything done in the remake is inferior to the original. Shots looks worse, music is worse, Scar is weaker and less intimidating, lines lose their impact, its like the entire soul was sucked out for some cgi tech demo.

3). Can You Feel the Love Tonight being in broad daylight. This one shows clear laziness and inability to remember what the original was. And you cant say creative differences because the context is being said to you, it is supposed to be a shot for shot remake, and they missed the mark on the most unfortunate part.

4). Be Prepared