Disney's Live Action Lion King Teaser Trailer...

[Johnny Novgorod]

To recap: it's not live-action if everything's CG, shot-by-shot remakes are pointless, and the whole thing has such an identity void it can't reimagine anything or develop its own personality. Darth Vader as Mufasa and shot-by-shot rehash it is.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

The story is a partial adaptation of Hamlet anyway so the original Lion King, outside of its music, also doesn't really accomplish anything either.

Yeah, it's an adaption of Hamlet. Except the plot, characters, themes, species, and story are all completely different. Okay yeah, the uncle kills the king and the nephew takes revenge, but apart from that the two works share almost nothing in common.

Also the nephew has a couple of friends whose purpose is to distract him from getting revenge. Though Timon and Pumbaa aren't working for Scar the same way Rosencrantz and Guildenstern work for Claudius. And thankfully there's no Simba killing pompous, ineffective advisor Zazu as Hamlet kills pompous ineffective advisor Polonius.

You know, the previous live action remakes all sought to address problems with the original. Cinderella tried to give some actual agency and character to Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast tried to make it look less like Stockholm Syndrome etc. But what can you build on or improve with Lion King? Its already great! Same with the Aladdin one there's been a teaser for, what exactly are you doing better than the original did?

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

The story is a partial adaptation of Hamlet anyway so the original Lion King, outside of its music, also doesn't really accomplish anything either.

Yeah, it's an adaption of Hamlet. Except the plot, characters, themes, species, and story are all completely different. Okay yeah, the uncle kills the king and the nephew takes revenge, but apart from that the two works share almost nothing in common.

Also the nephew has a couple of friends whose purpose is to distract him from getting revenge. Though Timon and Pumbaa aren't working for Scar the same way Rosencrantz and Guildenstern work for Claudius. And thankfully there's no Simba killing pompous, ineffective advisor Zazu as Hamlet kills pompous ineffective advisor Polonius.

You know, the previous live action remakes all sought to address problems with the original. Cinderella tried to give some actual agency and character to Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast tried to make it look less like Stockholm Syndrome etc. But what can you build on or improve with Lion King? Its already great! Same with the Aladdin one there's been a teaser for, what exactly are you doing better than the original did?

My issue with Aladdin is the giant, Robin Williams shaped hole in the cast

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

To recap: it's not live-action if everything's CG, shot-by-shot remakes are pointless, and the whole thing has such an identity void it can't reimagine anything or develop its own personality. Darth Vader as Mufasa and shot-by-shot rehash it is.

I wish they actually change up the whole story, especially the tone.

Because Wild Africa is not a happy-go-lucky heavanly place. It is brutal, wild, gritty, and un-merciful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PziDIb5_Qys

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPTZ714Dd54

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

So Hollywood looked at gaming's "remastered releases" where they charge full price for nothing more than a new coat of paint, and thought "Hmmm... let's do that!".

 

[ebalosus]

>Calling a CGI movie "live-action"

Muh sides. To Quote Drathnoxis:

And not live action. If it was live action, now that would be impressive!

Even Voxis Productions joked about how nonsensical a "live-action" Lion King remake would be

 

[Asita]

Ok, first of all I feel obliged to correct you on the terminology. That is not live action. Live action is when a production uses actors and actresses rather than animation. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was live action. Homeward Bound was live action. Arsenic and Old Lace was live action. The Matrix was live action. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a mix of live action and animation. This Lion King is not live action, it's computer animation.

And on that note, I have to say that I'm getting tired of this trend with Disney. It was maybe novel the first few times, and at least Maleficent tried to shake things up a bit (not unlike Wicked, really, albeit less successfully). But this looks like it's just trying to recreate the original with CGI rather than traditional animation. And that accomplishes nothing.

The story is a partial adaptation of Hamlet anyway so the original Lion King, outside of its music, also doesn't really accomplish anything either.

Eh...it's more accurate to say that it took inspiration from Hamlet than it is to say that it's a "partial adaptation" of Hamlet. While there is some commonality in very broad strokes (the story focuses on exiled princes whose uncles usurped the throne), the stories are wildly different in tone, characters, and themes, and of course execution. Simba certainly lacks the - occasionally suicidal - manic depression that defines the eponymous Hamlet, Nala similarly has little in common with Ophelia, Scar is really more a synthesis of Iago (Othello) and Macbeth (Macbeth) than he is a variation of Claudius, etc. And yes, we know from interviews that Hamlet was an inspiration for the Lion King, but so too do we know from those interviews that the biblical stories of Moses and Joseph were also among the inspiration for the film.

With that said, "accomplished" was perhaps the wrong word. I should perhaps have said that I don't think it has made itself distinct enough to justify its existence. Simply changing the visual medium from one animation style to another is not sufficient. The question is what makes this one worth seeing if you've seen the original? What did they hope to do better than their predecessor?

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Ok, first of all I feel obliged to correct you on the terminology. That is not live action. Live action is when a production uses actors and actresses rather than animation. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was live action. Homeward Bound was live action. Arsenic and Old Lace was live action. The Matrix was live action. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a mix of live action and animation. This Lion King is not live action, it's computer animation.

And on that note, I have to say that I'm getting tired of this trend with Disney. It was maybe novel the first few times, and at least Maleficent tried to shake things up a bit (not unlike Wicked, really, albeit less successfully). But this looks like it's just trying to recreate the original with CGI rather than traditional animation. And that accomplishes nothing.

The story is a partial adaptation of Hamlet anyway so the original Lion King, outside of its music, also doesn't really accomplish anything either.

Eh...it's more accurate to say that it took inspiration from Hamlet than it is to say that it's a "partial adaptation" of Hamlet. While there is some commonality in very broad strokes (the story focuses on exiled princes whose uncles usurped the throne), the stories are wildly different in tone, characters, and themes, and of course execution. Simba certainly lacks the - occasionally suicidal - manic depression that defines the eponymous Hamlet, Nala similarly has little in common with Ophelia, Scar is really more a synthesis of Iago (Othello) and Macbeth (Macbeth) than he is a variation of Claudius, etc. And yes, we know from interviews that Hamlet was an inspiration for the Lion King, but so too do we know from those interviews that the biblical stories of Moses and Joseph were also among the inspiration for the film.

With that said, "accomplished" was perhaps the wrong word. I should perhaps have said that I don't think it has made itself distinct enough to justify its existence. Simply changing the visual medium from one animation style to another is not sufficient. The question is what makes this one worth seeing if you've seen the original? What did they hope to do better than their predecessor?

My guess is the justifcation is that Beauty and the Beast made $1.2 billion at the box office despite everyone calling foul on the changes they made. I doubt the aproval meeting for this film went longer than fifteen minutes.

 

[Asita]

Ok, first of all I feel obliged to correct you on the terminology. That is not live action. Live action is when a production uses actors and actresses rather than animation. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was live action. Homeward Bound was live action. Arsenic and Old Lace was live action. The Matrix was live action. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a mix of live action and animation. This Lion King is not live action, it's computer animation.

And on that note, I have to say that I'm getting tired of this trend with Disney. It was maybe novel the first few times, and at least Maleficent tried to shake things up a bit (not unlike Wicked, really, albeit less successfully). But this looks like it's just trying to recreate the original with CGI rather than traditional animation. And that accomplishes nothing.

The story is a partial adaptation of Hamlet anyway so the original Lion King, outside of its music, also doesn't really accomplish anything either.

Eh...it's more accurate to say that it took inspiration from Hamlet than it is to say that it's a "partial adaptation" of Hamlet. While there is some commonality in very broad strokes (the story focuses on exiled princes whose uncles usurped the throne), the stories are wildly different in tone, characters, and themes, and of course execution. Simba certainly lacks the - occasionally suicidal - manic depression that defines the eponymous Hamlet, Nala similarly has little in common with Ophelia, Scar is really more a synthesis of Iago (Othello) and Macbeth (Macbeth) than he is a variation of Claudius, etc. And yes, we know from interviews that Hamlet was an inspiration for the Lion King, but so too do we know from those interviews that the biblical stories of Moses and Joseph were also among the inspiration for the film.

With that said, "accomplished" was perhaps the wrong word. I should perhaps have said that I don't think it has made itself distinct enough to justify its existence. Simply changing the visual medium from one animation style to another is not sufficient. The question is what makes this one worth seeing if you've seen the original? What did they hope to do better than their predecessor?

My guess is the justifcation is that Beauty and the Beast made $1.2 billion at the box office despite everyone calling foul on the changes they made. I doubt the aproval meeting for this film went longer than fifteen minutes.

I appear to be having trouble conveying my intended meaning lately. When I say "justify its existence" I'm not referring to how why executives might want to do it. I'm talking in terms of how I closed that paragraph. Let's think for a minute as someone who has seen the original. Why should I want to see this one instead of rewatching the original? That is what I mean by justification for its existence.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Ok, first of all I feel obliged to correct you on the terminology. That is not live action. Live action is when a production uses actors and actresses rather than animation. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was live action. Homeward Bound was live action. Arsenic and Old Lace was live action. The Matrix was live action. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a mix of live action and animation. This Lion King is not live action, it's computer animation.

And on that note, I have to say that I'm getting tired of this trend with Disney. It was maybe novel the first few times, and at least Maleficent tried to shake things up a bit (not unlike Wicked, really, albeit less successfully). But this looks like it's just trying to recreate the original with CGI rather than traditional animation. And that accomplishes nothing.

The story is a partial adaptation of Hamlet anyway so the original Lion King, outside of its music, also doesn't really accomplish anything either.

Eh...it's more accurate to say that it took inspiration from Hamlet than it is to say that it's a "partial adaptation" of Hamlet. While there is some commonality in very broad strokes (the story focuses on exiled princes whose uncles usurped the throne), the stories are wildly different in tone, characters, and themes, and of course execution. Simba certainly lacks the - occasionally suicidal - manic depression that defines the eponymous Hamlet, Nala similarly has little in common with Ophelia, Scar is really more a synthesis of Iago (Othello) and Macbeth (Macbeth) than he is a variation of Claudius, etc. And yes, we know from interviews that Hamlet was an inspiration for the Lion King, but so too do we know from those interviews that the biblical stories of Moses and Joseph were also among the inspiration for the film.

With that said, "accomplished" was perhaps the wrong word. I should perhaps have said that I don't think it has made itself distinct enough to justify its existence. Simply changing the visual medium from one animation style to another is not sufficient. The question is what makes this one worth seeing if you've seen the original? What did they hope to do better than their predecessor?

My guess is the justifcation is that Beauty and the Beast made $1.2 billion at the box office despite everyone calling foul on the changes they made. I doubt the aproval meeting for this film went longer than fifteen minutes.

I appear to be having trouble conveying my intended meaning lately. When I say "justify its existence" I'm not referring to how why executives might want to do it. I'm talking in terms of how I closed that paragraph. Let's think for a minute as someone who has seen the original. Why should I want to see this one instead of rewatching the original? That is what I mean by justification for its existence.

A fair question. Well one possibility (stretch that it is) is that the remake here might also be including the newer songs and scenes that were invented for the stage show, bringing that part of the experience to people like me who have never seen it. So there's the possibility of that expansion of the content.

Another reason, again a stretch I admit, is that Disney is in the business of animation and as some posters have argued, this IS animation, just a different kind. Perhaps they saw value in literally remaking something they were familiar with in a new style of hyper realistic animation. Literal reanimation, as it were.

Look anyone who this this is merely a mercenary money making venture is unlikely to be swayed - and hell, they're not wrong - so there's the usual argument of vote with your wallet and just don't see the damn thing.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

To recap: it's not live-action if everything's CG, shot-by-shot remakes are pointless, and the whole thing has such an identity void it can't reimagine anything or develop its own personality. Darth Vader as Mufasa and shot-by-shot rehash it is.

I wish they actually change up the whole story, especially the tone.

But they're not gonna. All they want is people clapping at the nostalgia cash-in. It's a vicious cycle at this point - anything that was popular 20 to 30 years ago gets dragged out and bedecked with technology's latest because people who were kids 20 to 30 years ago are the highest-grossing demographic.

I remember my parents pointing out how Disney never told original stories, everything was always based on fairy tales or children's books or the odd novel. Now all we get are copies of copies.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I remember my parents pointing out how Disney never told original stories, everything was always based on fairy tales or children's books or the odd novel. Now all we get are copies of copies.

And that's why Disney is working so hard to make copyright permanent, because they don't want anyone else copying what they're copying.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

They cut out Be Prepared which is the best Disney Villain song. Hard pass.

 

[Asita]

Ok, first of all I feel obliged to correct you on the terminology. That is not live action. Live action is when a production uses actors and actresses rather than animation. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was live action. Homeward Bound was live action. Arsenic and Old Lace was live action. The Matrix was live action. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a mix of live action and animation. This Lion King is not live action, it's computer animation.

And on that note, I have to say that I'm getting tired of this trend with Disney. It was maybe novel the first few times, and at least Maleficent tried to shake things up a bit (not unlike Wicked, really, albeit less successfully). But this looks like it's just trying to recreate the original with CGI rather than traditional animation. And that accomplishes nothing.

The story is a partial adaptation of Hamlet anyway so the original Lion King, outside of its music, also doesn't really accomplish anything either.

Eh...it's more accurate to say that it took inspiration from Hamlet than it is to say that it's a "partial adaptation" of Hamlet. While there is some commonality in very broad strokes (the story focuses on exiled princes whose uncles usurped the throne), the stories are wildly different in tone, characters, and themes, and of course execution. Simba certainly lacks the - occasionally suicidal - manic depression that defines the eponymous Hamlet, Nala similarly has little in common with Ophelia, Scar is really more a synthesis of Iago (Othello) and Macbeth (Macbeth) than he is a variation of Claudius, etc. And yes, we know from interviews that Hamlet was an inspiration for the Lion King, but so too do we know from those interviews that the biblical stories of Moses and Joseph were also among the inspiration for the film.

With that said, "accomplished" was perhaps the wrong word. I should perhaps have said that I don't think it has made itself distinct enough to justify its existence. Simply changing the visual medium from one animation style to another is not sufficient. The question is what makes this one worth seeing if you've seen the original? What did they hope to do better than their predecessor?

My guess is the justifcation is that Beauty and the Beast made $1.2 billion at the box office despite everyone calling foul on the changes they made. I doubt the aproval meeting for this film went longer than fifteen minutes.

I appear to be having trouble conveying my intended meaning lately. When I say "justify its existence" I'm not referring to how why executives might want to do it. I'm talking in terms of how I closed that paragraph. Let's think for a minute as someone who has seen the original. Why should I want to see this one instead of rewatching the original? That is what I mean by justification for its existence.

A fair question. Well one possibility (stretch that it is) is that the remake here might also be including the newer songs and scenes that were invented for the stage show, bringing that part of the experience to people like me who have never seen it. So there's the possibility of that expansion of the content.

Another reason, again a stretch I admit, is that Disney is in the business of animation and as some posters have argued, this IS animation, just a different kind. Perhaps they saw value in literally remaking something they were familiar with in a new style of hyper realistic animation. Literal reanimation, as it were.

Look anyone who this this is merely a mercenary money making venture is unlikely to be swayed - and hell, they're not wrong - so there's the usual argument of vote with your wallet and just don't see the damn thing.

I understand the mercenary viewpoint. But I was a theater nerd. I was explicitly taught to think in these terms.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

They cut out Be Prepared which is the best Disney Villain song. Hard pass.

THEY WHAT? Blasphemy!

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

They cut out Be Prepared which is the best Disney Villain song. Hard pass.

THEY WHAT? Blasphemy!

I'm with you, that shit be whack yo.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

They cut out Be Prepared which is the best Disney Villain song. Hard pass.

What?

What?!

WHAT?!

I get you might not want the Nazi imagery, but the solution to that would be cutting out the Nazi imagery not the whole song!

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

They cut out Be Prepared which is the best Disney Villain song. Hard pass.

Probably because of the goose stepping Hyena army that look like Nazis....

But they better cut out Mighty King and Hakuna Matata.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

They cut out Be Prepared which is the best Disney Villain song. Hard pass.

Probably because of the goose stepping Hyena army that look like Nazis....

But they better cut out Mighty King and Hakuna Matata.

I would rather them keep all the songs because The Lion King has the best Disney soundtrack.

 

[Drathnoxis]

They cut out Be Prepared which is the best Disney Villain song. Hard pass.

Probably because of the goose stepping Hyena army that look like Nazis....

But they better cut out Mighty King and Hakuna Matata.

I would rather them keep all the songs because The Lion King has the best Disney soundtrack.

Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast are better.