Lion King Remake (Jon Favreau)

I enjoyed it, didn't hit the same highs as the original. Didn't have the emotional impact during that scene and some of the songs were flat but overall it was an enjoyable way to pass a couple of hours and looked brilliant. Not as good as the Aladdin remake for my money, or my kids for that matter but would certainly not put anybody off going to see it.

FunLover18 wrote: »

Are you going to go back to watch the original? Would you be curious to compare them? Because I know I'd be curious to hear your reaction to the original having watched the remake first.

I am curious. I had heard the songs before (I wasn't totally deprived!) But yeah, it would be interesting to now watch the original. I did read that the re-union of Simba and the female cub/lion (can't remember her name) was far more moving in the original. In fact all of the reviewers seem to be saying that the new film lost alot of the soul of the original. But having not seen it, I had nothing to compare it to and really enjoyed it. Hamlet told through lions!

The original is far better - more emotional, better voice acting, more colourful. And honestly, I just don't buy into this notion that because something is photorealistic that that makes it better. In fact, the photorealism just took me out of it. The cartoon works because of the colour, exagerrated facial expressions, etc. which draw you into the story and there's obviously a suspension of disbelief that comes with it. It captures the imagination which actually helps with engaging with the heavier themes in the film, imo. The original is exceptionally moving precisely because it was made the way it was and this remake just brings that further into focus. I just didn't get the same impact from these "realistic" lions. I felt it was particularly bad during the scene in which Simba finds Mufasa's body (not spoilering it, the movie is over 20 years old) - totally bereft of the emotion required because it's just very difficult to convey the full range of emotions when you're using animals that look very real. The uncanny valley comes into strong effect here.

I'm not explaining myself very well here, suffice to say I honestly just felt like I was watching a nature documentary with broadway tunes playing over it at times. Bizarre. Wheras with the original, there's just a certain limitlessness to what can be achieved with a traditional animation that allows the viewer to engage with the material more. Just my opinion.

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

I would have enjoyed the 2 hours more if the children in the cinema would have stopped talking and if the fellow near me would have took some breaks with stuffing popcorn down his throat instead of non stop eating. I think it is sensible to wait until films are nearly going out of the cinema to see them in a near empty room for example what I am doing with Aladdin and Toy Story 4.

I saw Toy Story with a room full of kids and it was awful. They just can't sit still for that long, even when it's a film aimed at their age group. Doesn't help that a lot of parents just let their kids have the run of the place as well.

El Duda wrote: »

I saw it at a 10am Leictester square super screen screening and there were only about 8 people in there. Bliss.



I can understand people not liking this. Of course.

But some of the vitriolic responses are really chapping my ass.

1. We should all know by now that no IP is sacred. They have butchered so many beloved classics over recent years, we should all be more prepared for this by now.

2. Disney have made several 'live action' remakes over the last few years. Not a single one is better than the original. I don't even think Disney are trying to make them better. A cynical take would be that they are ONLY interested in money. A more open-minded take would be that they are remaking these classics for the new generation of kids. It breeds new life into them and may encourage some to seek out the originals.

3. Knowing all of the above, why would you build up expectations so much that you come out of the cinema seething. Seriously? What did you expect from a Lion King remake? I think they did as good a job as could be expected. They certainly didn't cut any corners with the visuals, the cast etc... It's quite a lavish production.

4. Remakes of Total Recall, The Thing, Robocop etc.., have all been a hell of a lot worse. Way lazier. Doing the bare minimum to cash in on the IP's. These Disney remakes are thoroughly watchable in comparison.

A side note...

I see people complaining how; "It's just a shot for shot remake. How lazy. there's no art involved."

These same people also post side by side comparisons and say "See... Look how different it is! They changed 'Be Prepared'! How dare they!"

Contradictive much?

I for one do not believe IPs to be sacred and am fully aware that many have been butchered in the past. My issue with this particular and the majority of the Disney remakes so far is how blatantly lazy they are.

I think Kenneth Brannagh's Cinderella is a huge improvement on the original adding a lot more depth to some of the side characters such as Cinderella's parents and the Prince. Also whilst it has nods to the original it could just as easily be labelled as a new adaptation of the Cinderella story. Judging by the trailer alone the new Mulan seems to be going down a similar route ditching the songs as well as characters from the Disney original like Mushu and Shang. A remake for me has to justify itself by doing something different, telling the story in a new way or approaching it from a different angle. Tim Burton's Dumbo did this although it was not as successful, at least it tried. Favreau's The Jungle Book didn't do anything for me, I might have enjoyed it more if they had not (IMO) shoehorned in the songs from the original which only served to remind me of a better film. Beauty and The Beast hones far closer to the original and suffers as a result, there are a few extra bits about Belle's mother but nothing to justify its existence. Aladdin whilst also honing to close the original is at least attempting to correct mistakes of the past by casting POCs in the leads which were all voiced by white people in the original, although it still has a white director and writer. It also alters the dynamic slightly between Aladdin and Genie (it doesn't work for me) and the make an effort to give Jasmine more agency. For me, there's enough there in the new Aladdin to justify its existence, I still wish they'd veered more from the original.

The thing with The Lion King though (which I still haven't seen) isn't that I don't want the film remade because it's sacred, the thing is that 2D animation is 100% the best way to tell that story, or maybe CGI Pixar style, and the point of the side by side comparisons isn't "look how different it is", the point is that the original is bright and vibrant and the animation allows the animals to move and emote in a way that real animals can't whereas the photorealistic remake just looks so bland lifeless in comparison. The animals, whilst the photorealism is amazing, are boring and nondescript because lions all look the same, as do warthogs and meerkats whereas the animation style of the original allows you differentiate characters far more clearly (Scar is the obvious example but also young Simba and young Nala). Some of the casting is also just lazy, getting JEJ back as Mufasa getting a different English comedian to do Zazu. Like I said I haven't seen it but these are all the reasons why I won't be going to see it. I have no problem with others going and enjoying it. It's certainly not out of any worship for the original which wouldn't even be one of my top 5 Disney animated films.

El Duda wrote: »

2. Disney have made several 'live action' remakes over the last few years. Not a single one is better than the original. I don't even think Disney are trying to make them better. A cynical take would be that they are ONLY interested in money.

It's not cynical, making money is so obviously the only reason that these films are being made. And it lets scriptwriters off the hook for a few years- it's far easier to remake and sell The Lion King, than to come up with a brand new story and market it. It's all about risk for large studios as to what movies they make, and a remake of The Lion King is very low risk as it is practically guaranteed to make serious cash.

I haven't seen anyone being 'vitriolic'- I suspect most of the so-called 'vitriol' is just people like me, who think it is lazy and pointless film-making and won't see it because they know they would get nothing out of it.

If other people enjoy it, great! I really could not care less what other people find entertaining.

justinbellford wrote: »

Be Prepared, was turned into an awkward almost spoken-line song.

Funnily enough, I thought Be Prepared was the best scene in it! In fact the whole elephant graveyard sequence of events was done very well, and I think it was because it stepped a little outside the super realism that the rest of the movie was going for. It was nearly a little bit dreamlike, which worked in its favour. Similarly the scene where Simba meets Rafiki again as an adult in the jungle - had an eerie, dreamy quality to it that I liked. This scene ended up being too short though - they cut the most important part which is Rafiki's bit about the past hurting.
So interestingly, it was the scenes that weren't trying so hard to be so realisitc that worked best for me.


I will say this for the new version, Scar is a more tragic figure in this one and I think it works.

I wonder though did people enjoy it because they just knew they'd enjoy the story and it allowed them to gloss over the film's shortcomings? I certainly felt that way at times. There were scenes that I enjoyed, but I'm not sure if it was just because I enjoyed those scenes and moments from the original and just liked the story anyway.

Timon (Billy Eichner) was mvp for me

Too much Nala (Beyonce) and this Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) was not scary

I took tissues expecting to be bawling, never used

El Duda wrote:

Female friend

Interesting. I wouldn't go to a movie I was expecting to hate regardless of who asked!

I enjoyed it but agree with the comments about it being a like watching the National Geographic channel. The lions in particular were so lifelike that it made it hard to distinguish who was who, particularly in scenes with poor/dim lighting.

titan18 wrote: »

I thought it was meh. Out of the live action Disney ones I've seen, this goes bottom. It doesn't do anything to actually justify its existence which I thought the others at least tried, and some managed to pull off. This is just a cash grab.

It has some good parts, mainly Timon and Pumbaa related, and He Lives in You is done in Xhosa in the credits and it sounds great, and I thought young Simon and Nala were good, but outside that its either lazy or just bad (Spirit was an awful song choice and Beyonce can't voice act at all).

I hope Disney's next versions are better, maybe do instrumentals of iconic songs from the animated films like they did with Jungle Book if they're doing anything animal related again.

Id still have hopes for Mulan and The Little Mermaid, but another bad one will kill this for people I think. Only really have Pocahontas and Hercules to be ruined after that really, along with inevitable sequels to these.

And potentially Tarzan as well