Mufasa: The Lion King (2024)

[Chedwiggen]

Sequel- slight interest
Prequel- no interest

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by Mandalorian

It’s still funny how none of this emotion stuff was a problem with The Jungle Book, arguably the best live action Disney remake. Why? Because the film was well written, acted, and entertaining in general.

Plus, it had a real, live boy in the center of the endless CGI to anchor the audience to his emotions.

[kevin87]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Apparently it’s a prequel

So, live action Lion King 1 1/2?

The first was fine, but nothing I'll ever watch again... but it didn't need any more. Especially a prequel which never happened originally. Why even bother ever having a prequel? If the story is worth telling, tell it first, or make it flashbacks in the first movie.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Mandalorian

It’s still funny how none of this emotion stuff was a problem with The Jungle Book, arguably the best live action Disney remake. Why? Because the film was well written, acted, and entertaining in general. That’s what the Lion King remake lacked. Not lions smiling. And animated TLK is still my favorite Disney movie, so I was hyped for the remake.

listening to Jon's commentary for 'The Lion King' was so disappointing, after 'The Jungle Book' but all the charm and specifically the animal animation took a giant step backwards, and he's kinda blind to that fact. Guess it'd be in bad taste to be super critical and negative to the character animators

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by DanTheMan

Well, that one had personality with it's main characters for the most part, especially Bill Murray and Christopher Walken.

Lion King had Eichner, Rogen, and Oliver bring the goods. James Earl Jones sleepwalked through his line delivery.

The only part of the live action Lion Ling I loved was Hakuna Matata. Danny Glover Jr especially sang his part with a new energy that the rest of the film was missing

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by DanTheMan

Lion King had Eichner, Rogen, and Oliver bring the goods. James Earl Jones sleepwalked through his line delivery.

Jones can't be faulted for being NINETY when he recorded his part, but Disney can for thinking he could bring the same vocal brio he did to the role when he was in his hale & hearty mid-60's. Same thing when Jones reprised Darth Vader in Rogue One and in the Star Wars: Rebels cartoon...he sounded depressingly frail in both.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by DanTheMan

Well, that one had personality with it's main characters for the most part, especially Bill Murray and Christopher Walken.

Lion King had Eichner, Rogen, and Oliver bring the goods. James Earl Jones sleepwalked through his line delivery.

even Beyonce sounded bored.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

even Beyonce sounded bored.

She's a terrible actress even in live action.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

even Beyonce sounded bored.

I think I was the most bored out of all of them combined.

[DanTheMan]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Plus, it had a real, live boy in the center of the endless CGI to anchor the audience to his emotions.

Live characters aren't particularly necessary all the time. Disney has shown that if you have great stories to tell and are relatable, then they can make the audience feel emotional for a lonely robot, or an insect, etc.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by kylor

I think I was the most bored out of all of them combined.

I tried watching this again, and honestly I just had to shut it off, it's one of the movies that you see once, and then never bother to rewatch. second time around = bored shitless.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

listening to Jon's commentary for 'The Lion King' was so disappointing, after 'The Jungle Book' but all the charm and specifically the animal animation took a giant step backwards, and he's kinda blind to that fact. Guess it'd be in bad taste to be super critical and negative to the character animators

I don't think Favreau or anyone who worked on the movie is blind to what it really was. The whole point of the movie was to chase technology. Disney and the filmmakers were always clear on that. Everything about the movie leading up to its release focused on the tech, and all the marketing focused on recreating iconic moments with new technology.

Why? It's THE LION KING. One of the most iconic movies of any kind of the last 30 years and maybe THE most iconic animated movie ever made. There's nothing to improve there, so instead of a "remake," you basically make a re-skin and people will show up because it's like hearing a new cover of your favorite song. It doesn't need to exist, it's nowhere near as good as the original, but it's fine and it's kinda cool to hear/see a new spin on a cherished classic.

That's what's so amusing about the people who are so violently opposed to the movie's existence. They either expected the movie to be something it was never supposed to be, or they keep changing their arguments as to what's so bad about it. And the good news is -- now that the obligatory first movie/remake is out of the way, they've hired a genuine visionary and given him a technological playground to make a sequel that could easily surpass its predecessor.

Anyway -- I don't think I can make my thoughts on the first movie any clearer than I did back when I originally saw it: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=1373

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by DanTheMan

Live characters aren't particularly necessary all the time. Disney has shown that if you have great stories to tell and are relatable, then they can make the audience feel emotional for a lonely robot, or an insect, etc.

psst - every one watch - 'The One and Only Ivan' -

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I don't think Favreau or anyone who worked on the movie is blind to what it really was. The whole point of the movie was to chase technology. Disney and the filmmakers were always clear on that. Everything about the movie leading up to its release focused on the tech, and all the marketing focused on recreating iconic moments with new technology.

Why? It's THE LION KING. One of the most iconic movies of any kind of the last 30 years and maybe THE most iconic animated movie ever made. There's nothing to improve there, so instead of a "remake," you basically make a re-skin and people will show up because it's like hearing a new cover of your favorite song. It doesn't need to exist, it's nowhere near as good as the original, but it's fine and it's kinda cool to hear/see a new spin on a cherished classic.

That's what's so amusing about the people who are so violently opposed to the movie's existence. They either expected the movie to be something it was never supposed to be, or they keep changing their arguments as to what's so bad about it.

yeah, but not when it's a nearly shot for shot remake, script wise Favreau took no risks. I found the 'Pete's Dragon' remake to be my favourite since it looked completely outside the box and redid and took the concept in an entirely different direction. Disney did 'The Lion King' soley for the reason, they can and did make a boatload of money, regardless of a tepid dull script.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I tried watching this again, and honestly I just had to shut it off, it's one of the movies that you see once, and then never bother to rewatch. second time around = bored shitless.

Lion King '19 only existed to entice people who were nostalgic for the mid-90's to wallow in one of their childhood favorites. It's a total "One & Done" experience once you take away the novelty of seeing the film done "realistically", aka Boring As Shit. All of the color, movement and charm of the original is leached out, leaving only the same brown-colored murk.

I mean look at the difference between the two films...!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_N5iaMHgKU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysb_gxJ8LE4

What's more interesting to look at, and listen to, especially for a kid? Would a Bugs Bunny short be funnier if Bugs looked like this...?

[Cremildo]

The Lion King 2019 is dead. It's a dead movie. It feels like one's watching carcasses performing shit by the hands of some invisible puppeteer.

[Creed]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

even Beyonce sounded bored.

She was the weakest link, while also making a better project that TLK, therefore also being the strongest link :

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

yeah, but not when it's a nearly shot for shot remake, script wise Favreau took no risks. I found the 'Pete's Dragon' remake to be my favourite since it looked completely outside the box and redid and took the concept in an entirely different direction. Disney did 'The Lion King' soley for the reason, they can and did make a boatload of money, regardless of a tepid dull script.

You're proving my point, though. The conventional wisdom seems to be "everyone will show up for The Lion King anyway, so do something new with it." But why would Disney risk desecrating the legacy of one of its crown jewels? The risk was in the technology and whether they could even pull off a movie entirely populated by photoreal animals (and clearly, many would argue that they failed). I haven't seen the Pete's Dragon remake, but it makes far more sense to give filmmakers latitude on a less-popular movie like that. If they accidentally make something good and people like it, great. If they don't, then whatever, it's just Pete's Dragon.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

yeah, but not when it's a nearly shot for shot remake, script wise Favreau took no risks. I found the 'Pete's Dragon' remake to be my favourite since it looked completely outside the box and redid and took the concept in an entirely different direction.

And it's noteworthy that the Pete's Dragon remake made the least amount of money of any of the recent rash of Disney remakes. People really do want the exact same product wrapped in shiny new paper, don't they?

[DanTheMan]

Everybody give Dumbo (2019) a shot if they haven't already.