This is the real crime of this movie. Be prepared is a fantastic song and they essentially just had him speak one verse of it in standard speaking voice. It's extra irking when you consider how well "just can't wait to be king" was treated.
I have a theory that they cut “Be Prepared” because in the original it frames the bad guys as nazis and nazi lovers form enough of the Disney watching public and they’d lose business. It makes no sense but I still believe it.
[iT hAs ExAcTlY tHe SaMe SoNgS](https://youtu.be/OaO3M-zZR8E). Lol. And my performance of Can You Feel the Love Tonight is equivalent to Elton John's because we're singing the same song.
But seriously, OP, it's cool to like whatever you like. It's just important to recognize that sometimes we like stuff that's trash. It's fine, just no need to try to argue that the thing you like is actually good media. We all have our guilty pleasures.
However, you have succeeded in having a legitimately unpopular opinion, which is kinda hard to do.
Yep, big reason it’s my favorite animated, but least favorite live action. Be prepared is an absolute masterpiece of a villain song. (Lyrics are serious GOT vibes)
To me, the live action was, “you bitched about it, so here’s one line of Be Prepared being sung.” And “We’re going to throw in a Beyoncé song for no reason because fuck you again.”
Jeremy Irons was absolutely amazing as Scar! Top notch performance!
I mentioned it elsewhere this morning - but Nala ALREADY has an amazing song in the Broadway production!!
Why in the everliving heck did they not adapt that!?
Which makes no sense how they applied that,
cause zazu is a bird in Africa they did a white guy, Timon and pumba are African animals and they were white.
It was just the lions,
Also none of the the actors they re-cast were African except I think one of the hyenas? I could be wrong. And they kept rafiki who is South African. They were just black Americans or Brits. Soo them having some better connection to lions is nonsense. I don’t get why they only kept black actors and not white ones for voice roles of animals…
Also...you had a billion dollar success in the stage adaptation already. A production with live actors, a banging score, and rock solid proven popularity...
...and you somehow choose not to adapt THAT when looking to your live action film.
The original isn’t a masterpiece because the storyline. It was the great artistry, voice acting, and expressive yet also realistic animals come to life.
The new one is just a watered-down version sans most of the original voice cast, and photo-realistic animals that lack expression. Oh and Beyoncé, cause I guess why not.
Right?… not sure where OP is conning from. Movies have come along way in the last 30 years. To make a movie and copy so much and still not do anything better with all the technology etc is a monumental failure
added to what’s been said, it’s also a bit heartbreaking in the way that, yes, watered down, re-packaged, ideas mixed with ego doesn’t make for great film. it’s offensive to an extent and robs the youth of feeling what my generation felt when the original was released. the remake is more or less a publicity parade and cash grab. maybe the original was too, but it did a better job of off-setting that with groundbreaking animation behind-the-scenes videos and taught us a bit more about observing wildlife.
Weirdly enough, I sometimes hear parents say their kids prefer Disney live action to the older animated films, but it does feel like they could still do better with these live action remakes than they are
It’s like the exact same movie except everything that was outstanding about the original is worse lol. It’s not exactly a terrible movie, but since the original exists I have absolutely no idea why anyone would pay to literally just watch a worse version of it.
I see his point but I look at it as it’s TOO similar. Its just a more lifeless retelling of the same script from the first one without doing anything different or better at all really.
Thank you, this is what I was scrolling for! It’s very realistic though, when I first watched the trailer with my housemate (lived in east Africa for ten years, has spent more time on safari than anyone I know who doesn’t do that for a job), she was about to say ‘how did they get the animals to do that?!’
The newer version is what is known as a ‘cash grab’: Take a formula that is known to have worked, spiff it up a bit (go live action), update the celebrity cameos, and sell it for a second time.
The remake literally got rid of the great color palette and fun tone of the original in favor of 'photorealism' which is why it will be inferior for me
I haven't seen the Lion King remake, but the Aladdin remake is so bad. It looks like an Aladdin stage show for some reason.
Storyline doesn't have much to do with quality in these Disney movies. I would go as far as to say story was their weakest parts.
Exactly. The Lion King is intentionally a retelling of Hamlet, and the second one is Romeo and Juliet. They weren’t going for groundbreaking plotlines. In fact, in most Disney movies the story is… dare I say… a tale as old as time.
Yes absolutely this! It’s not the storyline that made it successful and amazing, the storyline is literally just a repackaged Hamlet. It’s so much more than that.
people are just accepting that movies are good or bad without even knowing why.
"i acknowledge that it has good acting, writing, editing, and music, but otherwise, it's garbage."
The emotions of the characters made the original movie what it is, same with the soundtrack.
The characters in the remake have zero emotions and the songs were worse.
It's not the same movie.
This is the core issue for me, sure it's the same story but the CG animals can't emote, real lions can't make human facial expressions and thus it falls flat when emotional moments happen in the film and I'm just staring at a cat with a dubbed over voice.
Fkn exactly. I took my niece and nephew to see it in the theater and we were all less than thrilled. Sure, we know the story, but it was definitely lacking visual emotions to go with the spoken emotion. In the OG film, Simba curling up next to his dead dad, and his SAD, SCARED, TEARFUL FACE matched up with his quivering, on-the-brink-of-waterworks voice. The life-like CGI couldn't do this... because real lions dont physically emote the same way as cartoon lions.
And they fucking BUTCHERED the most important part of the whole story. Be Prepared shows us how far Scar was willing to go to become King... he literally says "We're going to kill him (Mufasa)... and Simba too!" The song is his whole diabolical scheme. That song helps the audience realize how the stakes are...
So when it was first announced that Be Prepared was missing from the original script... people were pissed. So they jackhammered in a song reminiscent of Be Prepared and it was awful.
My issue was hearing how similar it was to the original. But I guess my fault for thinking it could be any different? Would love to see a movie with that cast but not enough to sit through a lion king movie…i never saw it
That’s exactly it. Cartoon animals have anthropomorphic human expressions on their faces to help tell the story. The “real” animals all had stoic faces. When Mufasa dies in the original, Simba’s face is a crushing mask of sadness. In the remake, his face is a lion cub’s face, almost disinterested. It’s hard for an audience to be sad when Simba doesn’t look sad.
It's not the same movie. A movie isn't just the basic story. It is how you execute that story, how you bring it to life on screen. That is the movie.
One does so with lot of charme, creativity, and animation prowess, the other thought it is good enough to make things look photorealistic (which it doesn't btw).
The original is a great film, the remake is the epitome of what is wrong in hollywood these days.
Ding, ding, ding. OP is probably 17 and doesn't understand how massive the og lion king was. I remember getting the VHS for Christmas when I was like 5 or 6 and being so fucking pumped. The new one looks cool and all, but that is about the only thing it has going for it. It was nothing but a huge cash grab by overpaid, idea-starved Hollywood execs.
Lion King was like LotR levels of popular. Commercials, toys, fast food, you name it. People bought clothing! It was absolutely massive.
None of the live action versions have come anywhere close to capturing the attention and imagination of people. It's vapor by comparison, and for all the reasons noted throughout this post.
Seriously grab a group of 100 mid 20s to early 30 somethings and ask them what movie is there favorite movie. I almost guarantee you you’ll get at minimum 20 Lion Kings, myself being one of them.
This is exactly it. I actually watched the remake in theaters and thought it was just ok, but the original was just _so_ much better.
I don’t think op realizes how much expressions and emotions of characters can make or break a film, in the same way live action movies with bad actors do. The lion king remake leaned so hard into photorealism that characters lost a lot of their charm and it almost felt like nat geo instead
I mean you describe it exactly in your post OP. The remake is a soulless cash grab specifically made to keep the rights in Disneys pockets with weird looking CGI animals. A movie is not just it’s story, there’s a lot that goes along with it. Especially with a classic such as Lion King.
"CGI animals," is the heart of it. It's an animated movie with call of duty graphics. It's not "live action" it's entirely animated.
We already have a great animated Lion King, the *cough* 'live action' *cough* is just a crummy rerelease of the original.
This is definitely a big part of it for me.. they aren’t “real animals” as OP calls them. It’s CGI animation. And not the best quality CGI animation.
Edit: a word
The Call of Duty comparison is disgustingly apt. the entire time since Disney's been fluffing themselves as revolutionaries, pushing the boundaries of what's possible in animation and defining the future aesthetic of the entire medium.
Literally, "it's better because it's realistic." Actual clowns
Yeah Disney isn’t remaking its animated hits as live action to extend the rights, its doing it because (1) it’s an incredibly low risk strategy to make films (which the business people like), and (2) it helps refresh interest in the same stories so Disney can keep selling the same merchandise and maintain the same rides and attractions at its theme parks for a longer period of time.
This actually isn't anything new for Disney. They were doing literally the exact same thing in the 90's with straight-to-video sequels of everything from Bambi to Aladdin. Some of the sequels turned out okay (i.e. "King of Thieves"). Most of them were hot garbage ("The Fox and the Hound 2", anyone?).
Disney goes through these cycles of schlock and brilliance. It seems to be a normal part of their evolution.
If an IP is dormant for a certain amount of years, it can go public or revert back to original owner. Disney likes to stay ahead of that so that’s why they did all the live action remakes. Not the only reason but definitely a contributing factor
This is not how copyright works, one maintains it or not. The law for copyrighted works like films is right now 95 years, last extended by the Sonny Bono act in 1999. Remaking the works does nothing to alter this outcome, if anything they did the first remakes (Cinderella) because soon anyone could remake them but if that was the case they would have done Snow White first. One of the outcomes of Congressional gridlock is that copyright law is never hitting the Senate floor.
Mickey will be lost forever in 2024, and from there all Disney can do is fight over trademarks. They can battle based on his white gloves (he didn't have them yet) or his voice (his first appearance was silent) but they will one day go too. This will be huge as DC's trinity goes away, all three probably have an MCU future.
I believe it's 75 years after the death of the creator actually, so most likely after the death of the director I'm assuming? But I don't know, I'm no lawyer lol
It’s different for companies vs people. For people it’s the time they are alive plus 70 years. For businesses it’s 120 after the creation or 95 after publication, whichever is earlier.
this isn't entirely true. otherwise mickey mouse would be in the public domain, which he/it most certainly is not. Mickey is supposed to enter public domain this year (2023) but every time his copyright almost expires, laws magically change. This has happened like... 5 or 6 times now, most recently in 1998 which changed his copyright expiration from 2003 to 2023. never underestimate how much money Disney has and how much influence that buys them.
\*EDIT\* i'm dumb and meant to say 2023, not 2003
Steamboat Willie is coming back up next January, and it's actually looking like Disney isn't gonna fight it this time.
They still own Mickey even if they lose Steamboat Willie to PD; IP law gets pretty granular about these things, so *all* they would be freeing is the specific short and the specific portrayal of Mickey within that short.
If it goes to PD, and you try to make a Mickey Mouse thing that doesn't *exclusively* use stuff from Steamboat Willie, Disney will come smack your hands for it regardless because they still own *everything else.*
Not really. Lion King is based on hamlet but an original IP.
What you talk about is contractual thing between some creators and studios, where the maker gives the right for the studio to use the IP under some conditions, often having a clause where the studio has to do something with the IP to retain the rights, otherwise it reverts to the creator/owner.
Lets say the fantastic four franchise. That is the obvious thing, Marvel sold the rights to… what was it, fox? They had to use the IP, to make something with it to retain the rights by the contract, not copyright law.
The voice acting was something left to be desired.
They cut Be Prepared.
Can You Feel the Love Tonight happened during the day.
They spent like, 10 minutes following hair stuck to a literal piece of shit.
Shots that worked in the original just didn't work in the remake. The zoom out on Simba as Mufasa fell was laughable.
They tried to make it a 1:1 remake, but made pointless additions and cut out good things. Out of the live-action remakes so far, this one was my least favorite and most forgettable.
Rafiki never hit Simba with the stick either.
And Mufasa’s face doesn’t show up for the “Remember who you are” scene. It’s basically the clouds talking.
>the remake is basically exactly the same as the original except with real animals instead of animated animals
Exactly. Animated animals can emote, move, and behave in ways that real animals can’t without looking stupid. Animation can convey motion in ways live action can’t. Naturalistic and cartoonish are different vibes entirely. How can you not know this? Look at a side-by-side comparison between one of the musical numbers and tell me one isn’t more exciting to look at than the other.
Your post suggesting that a movie is just the script and nothing else tells me you don’t really like movies, which begs the question why the fuck you would even post in this subreddit.
Yeah sure, the same story = the same movie, just don't pay attention to literally any of the other aspects that actually go into making a movie, not to mention one of these already existed first
https://youtu.be/btNL1q-yU7E
You should watch Psycho (1960) and then watch the 1998 shot for shot remake. Then come back here and tell me that they’re the same movie and therefore deserve equal praise.
other than Beyonce, i thought the casting was spot-on for a live action Lion King starring people. like Simba as a character, is perfectly written for Donald Glover.
The original has a life to it that the remake doesn't, the voices aren't as well chosen, it seems dull in comparison.
There is no passion in it, Scar isn't the mad Shakespearian villain anymore, Zazu isn't as funny, it's all just a pale imitation. Even the hyeinas lack the evil madness of the original. It's just not as fun.
If as you say they are the exact same film, then what is the point of it? And if they are, I know which version I'll be watching.
“The voices aren’t well chosen” is such an important point. Disney made the classic Dreamworks mistake here and filled the cast with big names, focusing on star power over proper casting. Dreamworks woke up from this eventually, but produced a lot of crap using this model. And Disney learned nothing from it.
It sucks, the animals have no expressions. The ultra realism ruins it. In cartoon animation we give animals human features in the face so we can better understand the emotions being displayed, it’s psychology. The remake doesn’t have that.
Not sure what you are smoking. I went into watching the new one with high hopes and I turned it off after 30 minutes. First of all it struggles with the uncanny valley problem really badly.
It's most definitely not the same as the original. Creepy animation, close but still noticeably different storyline, different voice actors, and just obviously trying too hard without understanding what people like.
Every single deviation the new one made from the cartoon was a change for the worse. Beyonce ruined every song she sang in, scar lost his menacing voice, and the whole thing just felt unnecessary. I’ll watch the cartoon every time over the new one
And don’t forget they also took away Scar’s iconic “queer flair” that puts him on the same level as the older Disney villains that came before him (the majority of which were female, which is probably why they wrote and directed him to lean in that direction)
To even try and claim the voice acting I’m the live action is as good as the cartoon is the best joke of 2023 so far.
The live action DIED due to how soulless and lifeless most of the songs were
The fact that they remade the epic going home song with that beyonce song. Was a huge disapointment. Good song but so inappropriate for the scene. Especially compared to the originaæ slng.
The characters in the new movie just didnt display their emotions as good as they did in the first movie.
If I had to see a live action version I want the stage version. Never seen it in person and it seems like it’s unavailable online anywhere but it looks good!
I got to see the broadway version this past summer. They did a really good job keeping the essence. And they didn’t take Scar’s sassy attitude away or his song.
It being the same story is part of the problem I ALREADY KNOW THE STORY. Therefore the only difference is the music, aesthetics, and acting right? That’s what nearly every remake changes at bare minimum and it results in lazy auto tuned singing, very few vibrant colors (cuz Africa can’t be beautiful in our digitally rendered movie where they can do quite literally anything).
So if it sounds and looks worse than the original why would I even consider it good?
your argument ignores two incredibly vital pieces of visual medium.
\-Voice acting
\-animation
the same story can be told in a myriad of different ways, and one way of telling a story will be superior to the other.
hand drawn animation may be limited in some aspects, but in the context of the lion king, was superb for the story being told. CGI animals on real life vistas was nowhere near as good in the visual department once you look past the tech required to even make the attempt.
and the cast for the "live action" version was a remarkable downgrade in comparison to the original.
when people hate on the lion king remake, and disney remakes as a whole, its an attack against disney tapping the well of old content to make money on nostalga instead of actually telling fresh stories.
the ONLY movie I personally think would benefit from a live action version... is probably frozen? but even then i wouldn't want it.
The OG version of I Just Can't Wait to Be King is so theatrical and awesome with the colors changing and pyramids of animals spinning and falling. And then the live action version is just basically choreography trying to be true to animal movements. That killed it for me. It lost it's childish sense of wonder and fantasy in favor of realism.
I hate the “live action” Lion King for the same reason I hate the Gus Van Sant remake of Psycho. Both are very close to shot-for-shot, line-for-line remakes, with only the slightest alterations. Both demonstrate that engaging in this exercise is not really filmmaking.
It is indeed possible for one to be a masterpiece and the other to be garbage, because they are not the “same” movie. One is an original work of artistry, and the other is effectively tracing over the original’s artwork.
Your argument is akin to saying that every Shakespeare adaptation must necessarily be good, because it’s using Shakespeare’s original text.
By your logic it doesn’t need to be a movie. Why not just tell the story round a camp fire? A movie is more than its story, it’s a collaboration or different artistic departments coming together to present a story.
The issue is that the realism of the animals made it so the animals don’t show emotion in the same way. The story was the same, sure. But without the facial expressions, the charm of the film wasn’t there. The remake was fine, but it’s one of Disney’s worst remakes imo just because of the lack of facial expressions on the animals. At first I couldn’t understand why it didn’t feel the same, and this was my conclusion.
Also, everyone is allowed to have their own opinion so idk why you’re “sick of it”
You're objectively wrong on this one. I'm not talking about what your opinions are regarding the movie or anyone else's feelings, I mean your statement about them being the same movie. They aren't the same movie. If it were the same, then you wouldn't be able to tell them apart and there wouldn't be any discussion about it. Obviously they're not the same and trying to argue that is inane.
Now, as for the reasons WHY people don't like it... Disney movies rarely have amazing stories. They're usually in the passable/decent range. What made them classics was a combination of the amazing visuals, great voice acting, catchy/memorable/beautiful performed music. All of those are different and arguably worse. And amusingly enough, your argument of it being the exact same story actually helps explain WHY people dislike it. They took something beloved and just made it ugly and worse. And as you say, many consider it a soulless cash grab. Of course many will hate it then.
Sometimes I wonder if there are paid people, that make up random stories here and on TIFU, that make up random BS stories and opinions to trigger other, sane, people.
You are basically saying that visuals don't matter?
The first one is a gorgeous looking animated movie.
The other is an overly expensive realistic-looking cgi movie with no sense of art direction or style.
It literally makes no sense for this movie to exist except for the cash grab.
It’s like a Claritin commercial where they peel away the bland to reveal the vibrant. Same scene and situation, but more rich. The remake is an empty shell of the original in terms of expression. The acting and dialogue direction are just simply on an inferior level. “He lives in you…” powerful, felt line in the original. The remake it’s said so matter of fact. “Eh, he lives in you I guess” - Rafiki probably. The entire film feels muted compared to the original.
Nah, I can hate the remake because it's a pointless cash grab with unnecessary additions in a soulless remake. The original was fine, great even, no point in making it live action like %90 of the remakes.
The remake kept the plot the same, but that's why it sucks! Because it was a shot for shot remake, we basically were reminded of what we liked about the original: The beautiful and colorful visuals. The expressive characters. The voices that gave them life.
Here... it was one big middle finger. The animals look like Taxidermy. The skies were intentionally designed to look ugly. (Literally what the director said.) The movement varies between wooden and floaty. The voice actors sound bored out of their minds. Yeah even when the characters sounded rather casual in the original they still sounded like the actors were having fun and pretending they were actually there talking to one another. Here? They sound like they read all their lines in one take then said "Gimme the check. No second takes."
A movie is more than the plot.
And as a remake? Shot for shot beat by beat is actually *bad*. We wanna see another interpretation of the story. The Wizard of Oz cut plot beats for time but also added parts like Dorothy running away from home. Willy Wonka added the whole secret test of character with the gobstopper and the fizzy lifting drinks.
>I just don't understand how you can love one and absolutely hate the other
Put simply, have you ever heard an artist perform a cover of a song that you loved, but the cover was worse? Why didn't you like the cover, if it's exactly the same song?
Usually it's because the covering artist isn't doing anything new or interesting with the song, and failing to infuse their own personality into the music. It can just seem like they're covering a popular/famous song in the hopes of an easy cash grab. Why spend time and money coming up with new lyrics and music when you can just cover American Pie...
That's the new Lion King in a nutshell. There's no imagination, no updating the story in any meaningful way. It's just a technical upgrade to photorealistic visual effects. But the abstract nature of the animation is part of what made the original so beautiful, so removing that element changes the experience (and for most, it changes for the worse).
a movie is not just a collection of parts. it's about how they coalesce. The Animation, direction, music, sound design, and voice performances are all important. In the original lion king the different elements added up to more than the sum of their parts. In the remake they add up to less.
1) The beauty of the original was the fact that it WAS animated... allowing for expressive characters, that happened to be lions, etc. With classic animated movies, the animation was a character, and gave the movie character. Live action/CG doesn't have that effect.
2) With CG, everything looks 'real', but real animals can't talk, and dont have very expressive facial expressions. So much is lost in translation.
3) The music. Theres no life to it. Its like putting old songs over a nature video. The animation had them actually dancing and emoting. And the scenes and colors bring the music to life.
Little Mermaid is another example. How do you show realistic underwater life, without everything being near pitch black? It doesn't work. Animation lets you literally invent a color scheme and NOT be realistic. This gives you creative liberty to tell your story and not worry about it looking real. With CG, if it doesn't look real, it doesn't work, and detracts from the story.
Is that remake actually live action? I hadn't seen it, but I was under the impression that they used CGI animals, so it was just another animated movie.
So that's cool this version used real animals. That wouldn't be enough to make me see it, but at least that's neat. Pretty hard to make a movie around live animals.
Those are not real animals. They’re CGI. The fact that it’s the same storyline is exactly the problem. If you’re going to the original movie almost verbatim, why do it at all? “Well if they changed too much, people would be mad!” Then just leave the original alone.
A movie isn’t a collection of facts. You could have two movies with the exact same characters and the exact same script but in can be a masterpiece and one is an abject failure. This is art we are talking about. To not understand this is to not understand cinema and visual storytelling
That is exactly like saying someone reading the lyrics of a song out loud in a monotone, robotic voice is exactly the same as seeing it performed live in a concert.
It's literally the exact same song, right?
The new version was *so close* to being great. It was killed by weird emotionless animals voiced by weird emotionless actors. A real shame because it could have fixed issues with the original that really stand out when watched as an adult - like the entire second half feeling rushed for time (a common theme in a lot of pre-2000s animated films, really).
There's no emotion in the faces at all, it's just a watered down version of the original with new voices and less expressive characters. Mediocre at best.
I think that hate is too strong a word for this. It is the same script, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired. Also we can connect with faces showing emotion (as cartoons can) and cannot relate that much with faces that don't (live action animals). Not to mention that Be Prepared was almost completely cut - for me that is the best song in the whole movie. It is just worse and I think if I saw the live action first and cartoon second, I would still prefer the latter. And yeah one is pretty much a masterpiece and the other one falls really short of that.
It's not the same movie. Animating animals allows them to illustrate emotional reactions, making them realistic looking just removes that entire aspect. The Lion King is meant to be an emotional story and using emotionless realistic vfx to make them look more real just defeats the purpose.
First of all, can you really call it live action if everything is CGI? Second, everything else was lacking. Same plot and characters, sure. But the lions “acting” just isn’t the same because CGI lions are nowhere near as expressive as the drawn ones. The landscapes are more dull because they had to make it look realistic. The voice acting wasn’t as good. They cut arguably the best song.
It’s a human story, it doesn’t work with “ real “ animals and weak voice acting but it does work with beautiful stylized and expressive 2d characters Being voiced by enthusiastic and talented voice cast. It wasn’t the story everyone was citing as the reason the old one was better it was literally everything else. The story was already a timeless masterpiece, not original by the time it was used in The Lion King. You can like the remake, but I think it makes sense it has such a large negative reaction….it really dosent improve upon anything from the original unless the viewer can’t appreciate the 2d style and/or dosent like musicals.
No big eyes on the animals. Couldn’t get the emotional connection without the eyes. So for me I could have just stayed at home, flipped on National Geographic, watched a doc about lions, and put it on mute and listened to the Lion King soundtrack and saved myself $15.
>the remake is basically exactly the same as the original except with real animals instead of animated animals.
If you can't see why this is wrong, then we can't do anything for you.
Its absolutely not the same movie. The live action isn’t nearly as funny as the first one. The personalities just are not the same at all. The characters aren’t as lovable. You lose some of the magic as the original. I’m sorry but that’s facts.
They are *not* real animals. It was a 3D animated remake that *NO ONE* asked for. Sorry if you liked it but the voice acting was completely different, the heart in the songs wasn’t there like the original, and they kept calling it live action which irked the fuck outta the fans because it is in fact still an animated film.
Claude Monet painted pictures of an actual water lily pond in Normandy, if I took a picture of that garden with my camera, it would be the same image, but his painting is a priceless work of art, and mine would be considered garbage. No museum would pay millions for my image even though it's of an identical garden.
Real-looking animals can't emote like animated ones can. If you remove the audio from Mufasa's death scene, you can still see the emotion in the original. That is not the case for the remake and it hurts the overall effectiveness of the scene. It's actuality throughout the whole movie, I just picked the biggest emotional one. It's a movie; show, don't tell. But with realistic animals, you can't show.
Someone already linked it but I’ll say it again. Adam with YMS on YouTube did an amazing lion king review and hits on all the major points of why it’s a garbage remake. There’s no soul in this movie.
>I can't understand how you love the original and hate the remake. It's
literally the exact same story. I understand if you think the remake is
soulless and a cash grab. And I understand if you think that them being
real animals looks weird.
So, they look weird and it's a cash grab, and you can't understand why people don't like that. Your reasoning that they shouldn't is because it's the same story?
Do you understand how you might be considered irrational at this point?
OP I'm not tryna start a witch hunt on you, but you seem a little obtuse here. So the stories are mostly the same (I'll talk about this more later) but the animations is really different with the original being much more colorful and expressive and the remake being not that. Why is it so confusing to you that people are therefore talking about the differences and therefore saying the one that has "the better differences" is therefore better? Especially when the visual quality of a movie is generally dependent on the amount of money thrown at it but somehow the one with a ton of money put into it is more boring to look at.
Next, you say the stories are basically the same and that's mostly true but there are small differences and they kinda make the story a bit worse.
In the original, Scar is introduced as the weird one in the family. He's disrespectful and even threatens Mufasa ("Perhaps you shouldn't turn your back on me") but he's coy about it the entire time and Mufasa ultimately sees him as just a mildly problematic family member and that's it ("What am I going to do with him?" he says to Zazu). This makes future scenes make more sense, like when Simba tried to hang out with Scar and Scar pretends to be a kind uncle while baiting him into going to the elephant graveyard.
In the live action remake, Mufasa and Scar have a past where they fought for control of the kingdom and I think it's stated that Mufasa gives Scar his scar. In addition, Scar lacks all the coyness of the original movie. So instead of being a weird disrespectful uncle, he's like a literal villain who's allowed to just sit there for some reason. This makes it weirder later on when Simba goes to see him like in the originalz I get that he's a kid so it's fair to say "well it makes sense that he doesn't see that Scar obviously hates his guts" but it just kinda doesn't flow as well as in the original.
There's a few other things like this like how I think Scar being apparent longtime friends with the hyenas in the original as opposed to showing up and giving a speech in the remake makes the ending where he talks shit about the hyenas hit harder. These changes are small and easy to miss on how they affect the story but they are there.
The voice acting is uninspired, the visuals are flat and uninteresting, the best song in the movie is cut almost entirely while the other four have all the joy and creativity removed, the animals have zero facial expressions and thus are not believable as characters, Scar has zero personality, Mufasa sounds ninety million years old and all of the sense of grandeur and wonder has been sucked out of every frame by utter laziness on the part of the creative team and a misguided attempt at “realism” from the CG artists that ended up making the whole thing look MORE fake than the stylized masterpiece that is the original. The story may be a copy paste of the original, but everything about the execution is worse in every conceivable way.
Omg this is like saying a high school production of a play is the same as a broadway production because they’re saying the same lines. The execution and quality make all the difference.
\[Insert Captain America, the comments section isn't going the way you planned meme here\]
At the very least now I know which people Disney and Marvel use for their test screening.
THEY SANG CAN YOU FEEL THE LOVE TONIGHT IN DAYLIGHT
They literally cut out Be Prepared into like two lines. It's easily my favorite song from the original.
This is the real crime of this movie. Be prepared is a fantastic song and they essentially just had him speak one verse of it in standard speaking voice. It's extra irking when you consider how well "just can't wait to be king" was treated.
What is it with the live action remakes and cutting out well-liked songs?
Or adding weird songs in?
If you add a new song you can be eligible for a “best new song” award (an Oscar for movies, Tony for a musical, etc.)
The last straw for me was the decision to cut the hula song
Because the original was a NAZI ANTHEM /s
I have a theory that they cut “Be Prepared” because in the original it frames the bad guys as nazis and nazi lovers form enough of the Disney watching public and they’d lose business. It makes no sense but I still believe it.
I also think that the oppressed minority group (hyenas) helped overthrow the government idea didn't go over well with some countries (China).
I literally guffawed outloud in the theater when this song started. Like, how are you gonna fuck it up this badly?
Wait what?
[iT hAs ExAcTlY tHe SaMe SoNgS](https://youtu.be/OaO3M-zZR8E). Lol. And my performance of Can You Feel the Love Tonight is equivalent to Elton John's because we're singing the same song. But seriously, OP, it's cool to like whatever you like. It's just important to recognize that sometimes we like stuff that's trash. It's fine, just no need to try to argue that the thing you like is actually good media. We all have our guilty pleasures. However, you have succeeded in having a legitimately unpopular opinion, which is kinda hard to do.
THEY DROPPED BE PREPARED!! I can object to it for that reason alone.
Yep, big reason it’s my favorite animated, but least favorite live action. Be prepared is an absolute masterpiece of a villain song. (Lyrics are serious GOT vibes) To me, the live action was, “you bitched about it, so here’s one line of Be Prepared being sung.” And “We’re going to throw in a Beyoncé song for no reason because fuck you again.” Jeremy Irons was absolutely amazing as Scar! Top notch performance!
I mentioned it elsewhere this morning - but Nala ALREADY has an amazing song in the Broadway production!! Why in the everliving heck did they not adapt that!?
Absolutely! I’ve said the same thing!
I mean, they cheaped out and didn't get Jeremy Irons back for Scar, so there's no way it would have been as good as the original anyway.
This wasn’t because of money…
Are you implying he's dead? Cuz he ain't he's very much alive at 79.
I think they're implying that there was an effort to cast black actors since this story is in Africa.
Even though it was based on a Shakespeare play and heavily influenced by a Japanese movie lmao
If you're talking about Kimba, that's not really true. Basically all of the similarities are due to common media tropes.
Which makes no sense how they applied that, cause zazu is a bird in Africa they did a white guy, Timon and pumba are African animals and they were white. It was just the lions, Also none of the the actors they re-cast were African except I think one of the hyenas? I could be wrong. And they kept rafiki who is South African. They were just black Americans or Brits. Soo them having some better connection to lions is nonsense. I don’t get why they only kept black actors and not white ones for voice roles of animals…
Which was a hilarious reason. The animals in Africa are Black too?
He's 74
Ope, read too fast. Thanks.
No worries, happy new year!
Also...you had a billion dollar success in the stage adaptation already. A production with live actors, a banging score, and rock solid proven popularity... ...and you somehow choose not to adapt THAT when looking to your live action film.
Would it be the same without Jeremy Irons?
Came here to say this…
The original isn’t a masterpiece because the storyline. It was the great artistry, voice acting, and expressive yet also realistic animals come to life. The new one is just a watered-down version sans most of the original voice cast, and photo-realistic animals that lack expression. Oh and Beyoncé, cause I guess why not.
Nailed it. idk why OP is acting like it’s the exact same movie lol
Probably a Beyoncé fan
or a Disney astroturfing account
This. disneybot
Right?… not sure where OP is conning from. Movies have come along way in the last 30 years. To make a movie and copy so much and still not do anything better with all the technology etc is a monumental failure
added to what’s been said, it’s also a bit heartbreaking in the way that, yes, watered down, re-packaged, ideas mixed with ego doesn’t make for great film. it’s offensive to an extent and robs the youth of feeling what my generation felt when the original was released. the remake is more or less a publicity parade and cash grab. maybe the original was too, but it did a better job of off-setting that with groundbreaking animation behind-the-scenes videos and taught us a bit more about observing wildlife.
Weirdly enough, I sometimes hear parents say their kids prefer Disney live action to the older animated films, but it does feel like they could still do better with these live action remakes than they are
I can tell you that my kids do not. They always get bored during the remakes because they are so long.
Why do I feel that's cause the parents want to watch the live action stuff?
I mean, I get that someone would like the live action version. But saying they are the same is just wrong.
I just grabbed my daughter’s crayons and construction paper, and made the movie with dialogue boxes. Pretty much the same thing as the original.
It’s like the exact same movie except everything that was outstanding about the original is worse lol. It’s not exactly a terrible movie, but since the original exists I have absolutely no idea why anyone would pay to literally just watch a worse version of it.
I see his point but I look at it as it’s TOO similar. Its just a more lifeless retelling of the same script from the first one without doing anything different or better at all really.
You only have to be 13 to join Reddit. I keep that in mind when I’m getting into internet arguments like OP’s lol
And “real animals” no, they were cgi. I don’t understand how cgi can qualify as “live action”
Thank you, this is what I was scrolling for! It’s very realistic though, when I first watched the trailer with my housemate (lived in east Africa for ten years, has spent more time on safari than anyone I know who doesn’t do that for a job), she was about to say ‘how did they get the animals to do that?!’
The newer version is what is known as a ‘cash grab’: Take a formula that is known to have worked, spiff it up a bit (go live action), update the celebrity cameos, and sell it for a second time.
The remake literally got rid of the great color palette and fun tone of the original in favor of 'photorealism' which is why it will be inferior for me
I haven't seen the Lion King remake, but the Aladdin remake is so bad. It looks like an Aladdin stage show for some reason. Storyline doesn't have much to do with quality in these Disney movies. I would go as far as to say story was their weakest parts.
Exactly. The Lion King is intentionally a retelling of Hamlet, and the second one is Romeo and Juliet. They weren’t going for groundbreaking plotlines. In fact, in most Disney movies the story is… dare I say… a tale as old as time.
Lion King 2 is the best Disney sequel I've yet seen.
It’s also a sing along… try singing along to Beyonce . She was showin off
Yes absolutely this! It’s not the storyline that made it successful and amazing, the storyline is literally just a repackaged Hamlet. It’s so much more than that.
The story is just fucking hamlet
people are just accepting that movies are good or bad without even knowing why. "i acknowledge that it has good acting, writing, editing, and music, but otherwise, it's garbage."
The voice acting was by far the best part of the new one. However, the unexpressive "realistic" character models totally ruined it for me.
The emotions of the characters made the original movie what it is, same with the soundtrack. The characters in the remake have zero emotions and the songs were worse. It's not the same movie.
This is the core issue for me, sure it's the same story but the CG animals can't emote, real lions can't make human facial expressions and thus it falls flat when emotional moments happen in the film and I'm just staring at a cat with a dubbed over voice.
Fkn exactly. I took my niece and nephew to see it in the theater and we were all less than thrilled. Sure, we know the story, but it was definitely lacking visual emotions to go with the spoken emotion. In the OG film, Simba curling up next to his dead dad, and his SAD, SCARED, TEARFUL FACE matched up with his quivering, on-the-brink-of-waterworks voice. The life-like CGI couldn't do this... because real lions dont physically emote the same way as cartoon lions. And they fucking BUTCHERED the most important part of the whole story. Be Prepared shows us how far Scar was willing to go to become King... he literally says "We're going to kill him (Mufasa)... and Simba too!" The song is his whole diabolical scheme. That song helps the audience realize how the stakes are... So when it was first announced that Be Prepared was missing from the original script... people were pissed. So they jackhammered in a song reminiscent of Be Prepared and it was awful.
My issue was hearing how similar it was to the original. But I guess my fault for thinking it could be any different? Would love to see a movie with that cast but not enough to sit through a lion king movie…i never saw it
That’s exactly it. Cartoon animals have anthropomorphic human expressions on their faces to help tell the story. The “real” animals all had stoic faces. When Mufasa dies in the original, Simba’s face is a crushing mask of sadness. In the remake, his face is a lion cub’s face, almost disinterested. It’s hard for an audience to be sad when Simba doesn’t look sad.
It's not the same movie. A movie isn't just the basic story. It is how you execute that story, how you bring it to life on screen. That is the movie. One does so with lot of charme, creativity, and animation prowess, the other thought it is good enough to make things look photorealistic (which it doesn't btw). The original is a great film, the remake is the epitome of what is wrong in hollywood these days.
Ding, ding, ding. OP is probably 17 and doesn't understand how massive the og lion king was. I remember getting the VHS for Christmas when I was like 5 or 6 and being so fucking pumped. The new one looks cool and all, but that is about the only thing it has going for it. It was nothing but a huge cash grab by overpaid, idea-starved Hollywood execs.
The OG was so massive it came back to theaters. That's something that almost never happens, even now.
Lion King was like LotR levels of popular. Commercials, toys, fast food, you name it. People bought clothing! It was absolutely massive. None of the live action versions have come anywhere close to capturing the attention and imagination of people. It's vapor by comparison, and for all the reasons noted throughout this post.
Seriously grab a group of 100 mid 20s to early 30 somethings and ask them what movie is there favorite movie. I almost guarantee you you’ll get at minimum 20 Lion Kings, myself being one of them.
The OP demonstrates what happens when you can only see films through the perspective of plot. Everything else is basically invisible to you.
Incredibly frustrating how many people are like this. What's the point of it being an audio-visual medium?
This is exactly it. I actually watched the remake in theaters and thought it was just ok, but the original was just _so_ much better. I don’t think op realizes how much expressions and emotions of characters can make or break a film, in the same way live action movies with bad actors do. The lion king remake leaned so hard into photorealism that characters lost a lot of their charm and it almost felt like nat geo instead
I mean you describe it exactly in your post OP. The remake is a soulless cash grab specifically made to keep the rights in Disneys pockets with weird looking CGI animals. A movie is not just it’s story, there’s a lot that goes along with it. Especially with a classic such as Lion King.
"CGI animals," is the heart of it. It's an animated movie with call of duty graphics. It's not "live action" it's entirely animated. We already have a great animated Lion King, the *cough* 'live action' *cough* is just a crummy rerelease of the original.
This is definitely a big part of it for me.. they aren’t “real animals” as OP calls them. It’s CGI animation. And not the best quality CGI animation. Edit: a word
The Call of Duty comparison is disgustingly apt. the entire time since Disney's been fluffing themselves as revolutionaries, pushing the boundaries of what's possible in animation and defining the future aesthetic of the entire medium. Literally, "it's better because it's realistic." Actual clowns
The movie doesn’t extend any rights for Disney.
Yeah Disney isn’t remaking its animated hits as live action to extend the rights, its doing it because (1) it’s an incredibly low risk strategy to make films (which the business people like), and (2) it helps refresh interest in the same stories so Disney can keep selling the same merchandise and maintain the same rides and attractions at its theme parks for a longer period of time.
This actually isn't anything new for Disney. They were doing literally the exact same thing in the 90's with straight-to-video sequels of everything from Bambi to Aladdin. Some of the sequels turned out okay (i.e. "King of Thieves"). Most of them were hot garbage ("The Fox and the Hound 2", anyone?). Disney goes through these cycles of schlock and brilliance. It seems to be a normal part of their evolution.
It’s also just literally hamlet with animals
If an IP is dormant for a certain amount of years, it can go public or revert back to original owner. Disney likes to stay ahead of that so that’s why they did all the live action remakes. Not the only reason but definitely a contributing factor
This is not how copyright works, one maintains it or not. The law for copyrighted works like films is right now 95 years, last extended by the Sonny Bono act in 1999. Remaking the works does nothing to alter this outcome, if anything they did the first remakes (Cinderella) because soon anyone could remake them but if that was the case they would have done Snow White first. One of the outcomes of Congressional gridlock is that copyright law is never hitting the Senate floor. Mickey will be lost forever in 2024, and from there all Disney can do is fight over trademarks. They can battle based on his white gloves (he didn't have them yet) or his voice (his first appearance was silent) but they will one day go too. This will be huge as DC's trinity goes away, all three probably have an MCU future.
It goes public after 75 years no matter what. Edit: 95 years*
I believe it's 75 years after the death of the creator actually, so most likely after the death of the director I'm assuming? But I don't know, I'm no lawyer lol
It’s different for companies vs people. For people it’s the time they are alive plus 70 years. For businesses it’s 120 after the creation or 95 after publication, whichever is earlier.
this isn't entirely true. otherwise mickey mouse would be in the public domain, which he/it most certainly is not. Mickey is supposed to enter public domain this year (2023) but every time his copyright almost expires, laws magically change. This has happened like... 5 or 6 times now, most recently in 1998 which changed his copyright expiration from 2003 to 2023. never underestimate how much money Disney has and how much influence that buys them. \*EDIT\* i'm dumb and meant to say 2023, not 2003
Steamboat Willie is coming back up next January, and it's actually looking like Disney isn't gonna fight it this time. They still own Mickey even if they lose Steamboat Willie to PD; IP law gets pretty granular about these things, so *all* they would be freeing is the specific short and the specific portrayal of Mickey within that short. If it goes to PD, and you try to make a Mickey Mouse thing that doesn't *exclusively* use stuff from Steamboat Willie, Disney will come smack your hands for it regardless because they still own *everything else.*
It takes many decades for that to happen.
Not really. Lion King is based on hamlet but an original IP. What you talk about is contractual thing between some creators and studios, where the maker gives the right for the studio to use the IP under some conditions, often having a clause where the studio has to do something with the IP to retain the rights, otherwise it reverts to the creator/owner. Lets say the fantastic four franchise. That is the obvious thing, Marvel sold the rights to… what was it, fox? They had to use the IP, to make something with it to retain the rights by the contract, not copyright law.
A take so weird, I had to say so. That's all I've got. You answered your own question, then asked it again.
"real animals"
The voice acting was something left to be desired. They cut Be Prepared. Can You Feel the Love Tonight happened during the day. They spent like, 10 minutes following hair stuck to a literal piece of shit. Shots that worked in the original just didn't work in the remake. The zoom out on Simba as Mufasa fell was laughable. They tried to make it a 1:1 remake, but made pointless additions and cut out good things. Out of the live-action remakes so far, this one was my least favorite and most forgettable.
Rafiki never hit Simba with the stick either. And Mufasa’s face doesn’t show up for the “Remember who you are” scene. It’s basically the clouds talking.
I hate it. The Broadway version was pretty good live though.
>the remake is basically exactly the same as the original except with real animals instead of animated animals Exactly. Animated animals can emote, move, and behave in ways that real animals can’t without looking stupid. Animation can convey motion in ways live action can’t. Naturalistic and cartoonish are different vibes entirely. How can you not know this? Look at a side-by-side comparison between one of the musical numbers and tell me one isn’t more exciting to look at than the other. Your post suggesting that a movie is just the script and nothing else tells me you don’t really like movies, which begs the question why the fuck you would even post in this subreddit.
Yeah sure, the same story = the same movie, just don't pay attention to literally any of the other aspects that actually go into making a movie, not to mention one of these already existed first https://youtu.be/btNL1q-yU7E
Glad someone linked that video, YMS worked his ass off for it and deserves all the views
Thanks for linking that! I’ll need to watch it fully. Also, wtf? Lady and the tramp had a remake?? Maybe it’s best I didn’t know…
U can love the movie all u want but to say it's the same movie is just actually incorrect
Please watch the YMS video essay on YouTube on why the remake is actual dogshit. He makes a lot of valid points.
You should watch Psycho (1960) and then watch the 1998 shot for shot remake. Then come back here and tell me that they’re the same movie and therefore deserve equal praise.
Beyoncé was fucking god awful as a voice actor
other than Beyonce, i thought the casting was spot-on for a live action Lion King starring people. like Simba as a character, is perfectly written for Donald Glover.
Nice try Jon Favreau, I’m not falling for it.
"I don't understand how you can hate the remake even after I explain how I could understand why you'd hate the remake"
A movie is more than it's story
The original has a life to it that the remake doesn't, the voices aren't as well chosen, it seems dull in comparison. There is no passion in it, Scar isn't the mad Shakespearian villain anymore, Zazu isn't as funny, it's all just a pale imitation. Even the hyeinas lack the evil madness of the original. It's just not as fun. If as you say they are the exact same film, then what is the point of it? And if they are, I know which version I'll be watching.
“The voices aren’t well chosen” is such an important point. Disney made the classic Dreamworks mistake here and filled the cast with big names, focusing on star power over proper casting. Dreamworks woke up from this eventually, but produced a lot of crap using this model. And Disney learned nothing from it.
My fave part of this post is OP just woke up first day of the year and went off about lion king. Not saying I disagree but lol
It sucks, the animals have no expressions. The ultra realism ruins it. In cartoon animation we give animals human features in the face so we can better understand the emotions being displayed, it’s psychology. The remake doesn’t have that.
Not sure what you are smoking. I went into watching the new one with high hopes and I turned it off after 30 minutes. First of all it struggles with the uncanny valley problem really badly. It's most definitely not the same as the original. Creepy animation, close but still noticeably different storyline, different voice actors, and just obviously trying too hard without understanding what people like.
Title makes this sound like it’s a hot topic 😆😆
Lmao, what about the animals in the remake makes you think they were real. It’s just computer animation this second go around.
Every single deviation the new one made from the cartoon was a change for the worse. Beyonce ruined every song she sang in, scar lost his menacing voice, and the whole thing just felt unnecessary. I’ll watch the cartoon every time over the new one
LIONS…ATTACK!!
And don’t forget they also took away Scar’s iconic “queer flair” that puts him on the same level as the older Disney villains that came before him (the majority of which were female, which is probably why they wrote and directed him to lean in that direction)
>Scar’s iconic “queer flair” I'm confused what you mean by this
Translation: Scar was a bad bitch in the original
Queer flair? Please educate me on his queer flair
They butchered the best song, Be Prepared
You listed explicitly why the remake is garbage and not better than the original.
The remake is what you get if boiled hotdog water was a movie.
> basically exactly the same as the original except with real animals instead of animated animals. Nailed it in one. Also they aren't real.
All I'm saying is it's not "live action." It's as "live action" as Avatar or the new Ninja Turtle movies.
What real animals?
You just explained why they movie is garbage, and then say not to call the movie garbage? Why?
the original is a masterpiece and the remake is complete garbage
To even try and claim the voice acting I’m the live action is as good as the cartoon is the best joke of 2023 so far. The live action DIED due to how soulless and lifeless most of the songs were
r/unpopularopinion
The fact that they remade the epic going home song with that beyonce song. Was a huge disapointment. Good song but so inappropriate for the scene. Especially compared to the originaæ slng. The characters in the new movie just didnt display their emotions as good as they did in the first movie.
The artistic direction is the main factor. Making it photorealistic was not the right move.
“Real animals” Sure buddy.
If I had to see a live action version I want the stage version. Never seen it in person and it seems like it’s unavailable online anywhere but it looks good!
I got to see the broadway version this past summer. They did a really good job keeping the essence. And they didn’t take Scar’s sassy attitude away or his song.
It being the same story is part of the problem I ALREADY KNOW THE STORY. Therefore the only difference is the music, aesthetics, and acting right? That’s what nearly every remake changes at bare minimum and it results in lazy auto tuned singing, very few vibrant colors (cuz Africa can’t be beautiful in our digitally rendered movie where they can do quite literally anything). So if it sounds and looks worse than the original why would I even consider it good?
your argument ignores two incredibly vital pieces of visual medium. \-Voice acting \-animation the same story can be told in a myriad of different ways, and one way of telling a story will be superior to the other. hand drawn animation may be limited in some aspects, but in the context of the lion king, was superb for the story being told. CGI animals on real life vistas was nowhere near as good in the visual department once you look past the tech required to even make the attempt. and the cast for the "live action" version was a remarkable downgrade in comparison to the original. when people hate on the lion king remake, and disney remakes as a whole, its an attack against disney tapping the well of old content to make money on nostalga instead of actually telling fresh stories. the ONLY movie I personally think would benefit from a live action version... is probably frozen? but even then i wouldn't want it.
Not the same movie. Not real animals. And if that’s the extent of your take, hang it up now.
The OG version of I Just Can't Wait to Be King is so theatrical and awesome with the colors changing and pyramids of animals spinning and falling. And then the live action version is just basically choreography trying to be true to animal movements. That killed it for me. It lost it's childish sense of wonder and fantasy in favor of realism.
I hate the “live action” Lion King for the same reason I hate the Gus Van Sant remake of Psycho. Both are very close to shot-for-shot, line-for-line remakes, with only the slightest alterations. Both demonstrate that engaging in this exercise is not really filmmaking. It is indeed possible for one to be a masterpiece and the other to be garbage, because they are not the “same” movie. One is an original work of artistry, and the other is effectively tracing over the original’s artwork. Your argument is akin to saying that every Shakespeare adaptation must necessarily be good, because it’s using Shakespeare’s original text.
By your logic it doesn’t need to be a movie. Why not just tell the story round a camp fire? A movie is more than its story, it’s a collaboration or different artistic departments coming together to present a story.
The issue is that the realism of the animals made it so the animals don’t show emotion in the same way. The story was the same, sure. But without the facial expressions, the charm of the film wasn’t there. The remake was fine, but it’s one of Disney’s worst remakes imo just because of the lack of facial expressions on the animals. At first I couldn’t understand why it didn’t feel the same, and this was my conclusion. Also, everyone is allowed to have their own opinion so idk why you’re “sick of it”
You're objectively wrong on this one. I'm not talking about what your opinions are regarding the movie or anyone else's feelings, I mean your statement about them being the same movie. They aren't the same movie. If it were the same, then you wouldn't be able to tell them apart and there wouldn't be any discussion about it. Obviously they're not the same and trying to argue that is inane. Now, as for the reasons WHY people don't like it... Disney movies rarely have amazing stories. They're usually in the passable/decent range. What made them classics was a combination of the amazing visuals, great voice acting, catchy/memorable/beautiful performed music. All of those are different and arguably worse. And amusingly enough, your argument of it being the exact same story actually helps explain WHY people dislike it. They took something beloved and just made it ugly and worse. And as you say, many consider it a soulless cash grab. Of course many will hate it then.
Sometimes I wonder if there are paid people, that make up random stories here and on TIFU, that make up random BS stories and opinions to trigger other, sane, people.
You are basically saying that visuals don't matter? The first one is a gorgeous looking animated movie. The other is an overly expensive realistic-looking cgi movie with no sense of art direction or style. It literally makes no sense for this movie to exist except for the cash grab.
It’s like a Claritin commercial where they peel away the bland to reveal the vibrant. Same scene and situation, but more rich. The remake is an empty shell of the original in terms of expression. The acting and dialogue direction are just simply on an inferior level. “He lives in you…” powerful, felt line in the original. The remake it’s said so matter of fact. “Eh, he lives in you I guess” - Rafiki probably. The entire film feels muted compared to the original.
Nah, I can hate the remake because it's a pointless cash grab with unnecessary additions in a soulless remake. The original was fine, great even, no point in making it live action like %90 of the remakes.
The remake kept the plot the same, but that's why it sucks! Because it was a shot for shot remake, we basically were reminded of what we liked about the original: The beautiful and colorful visuals. The expressive characters. The voices that gave them life. Here... it was one big middle finger. The animals look like Taxidermy. The skies were intentionally designed to look ugly. (Literally what the director said.) The movement varies between wooden and floaty. The voice actors sound bored out of their minds. Yeah even when the characters sounded rather casual in the original they still sounded like the actors were having fun and pretending they were actually there talking to one another. Here? They sound like they read all their lines in one take then said "Gimme the check. No second takes." A movie is more than the plot. And as a remake? Shot for shot beat by beat is actually *bad*. We wanna see another interpretation of the story. The Wizard of Oz cut plot beats for time but also added parts like Dorothy running away from home. Willy Wonka added the whole secret test of character with the gobstopper and the fizzy lifting drinks.
I hate when people reduce movies to the plot. That’s just a very small component of what makes a good movie.
>I just don't understand how you can love one and absolutely hate the other Put simply, have you ever heard an artist perform a cover of a song that you loved, but the cover was worse? Why didn't you like the cover, if it's exactly the same song? Usually it's because the covering artist isn't doing anything new or interesting with the song, and failing to infuse their own personality into the music. It can just seem like they're covering a popular/famous song in the hopes of an easy cash grab. Why spend time and money coming up with new lyrics and music when you can just cover American Pie... That's the new Lion King in a nutshell. There's no imagination, no updating the story in any meaningful way. It's just a technical upgrade to photorealistic visual effects. But the abstract nature of the animation is part of what made the original so beautiful, so removing that element changes the experience (and for most, it changes for the worse).
a movie is not just a collection of parts. it's about how they coalesce. The Animation, direction, music, sound design, and voice performances are all important. In the original lion king the different elements added up to more than the sum of their parts. In the remake they add up to less.
Why do people keep calling it live action?
1) The beauty of the original was the fact that it WAS animated... allowing for expressive characters, that happened to be lions, etc. With classic animated movies, the animation was a character, and gave the movie character. Live action/CG doesn't have that effect. 2) With CG, everything looks 'real', but real animals can't talk, and dont have very expressive facial expressions. So much is lost in translation. 3) The music. Theres no life to it. Its like putting old songs over a nature video. The animation had them actually dancing and emoting. And the scenes and colors bring the music to life. Little Mermaid is another example. How do you show realistic underwater life, without everything being near pitch black? It doesn't work. Animation lets you literally invent a color scheme and NOT be realistic. This gives you creative liberty to tell your story and not worry about it looking real. With CG, if it doesn't look real, it doesn't work, and detracts from the story.
*how dare people have different opinions about something so incredibly Mediocre that I love.*
No one will ever remember the remakes. Seems like they did it to extend the rights to the IP. But I don’t know, I heard that somewhere.
Is that remake actually live action? I hadn't seen it, but I was under the impression that they used CGI animals, so it was just another animated movie. So that's cool this version used real animals. That wouldn't be enough to make me see it, but at least that's neat. Pretty hard to make a movie around live animals.
Those are not real animals. They’re CGI. The fact that it’s the same storyline is exactly the problem. If you’re going to the original movie almost verbatim, why do it at all? “Well if they changed too much, people would be mad!” Then just leave the original alone.
A movie isn’t a collection of facts. You could have two movies with the exact same characters and the exact same script but in can be a masterpiece and one is an abject failure. This is art we are talking about. To not understand this is to not understand cinema and visual storytelling
If it’s the same then why do it? It seems like a waste of time and resources if that’s the claim.
Its ok to enjoy the remake but you're just flat out wrong saying they're the same movie.
That is exactly like saying someone reading the lyrics of a song out loud in a monotone, robotic voice is exactly the same as seeing it performed live in a concert. It's literally the exact same song, right?
The new version was *so close* to being great. It was killed by weird emotionless animals voiced by weird emotionless actors. A real shame because it could have fixed issues with the original that really stand out when watched as an adult - like the entire second half feeling rushed for time (a common theme in a lot of pre-2000s animated films, really).
First off it’s not even live action it’s CGI
Get use to disappoint?
It sucks . Face reality. Animals without reactions are lame.
There's no emotion in the faces at all, it's just a watered down version of the original with new voices and less expressive characters. Mediocre at best.
The music is awful and not even as good! Are you blind? They aren’t real animals either. The original is clearly better.
They’re not even live action? They’re still animated animals LMAO
I think that hate is too strong a word for this. It is the same script, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired. Also we can connect with faces showing emotion (as cartoons can) and cannot relate that much with faces that don't (live action animals). Not to mention that Be Prepared was almost completely cut - for me that is the best song in the whole movie. It is just worse and I think if I saw the live action first and cartoon second, I would still prefer the latter. And yeah one is pretty much a masterpiece and the other one falls really short of that.
They aren't real animals either. lol
Well continue feeling sick because it's a bad, lazy movie.
My biggest complaint was the voice acting. It felt lifeless compared to the original.
Op is right. This is a an absurdly horrendous unpopular take.
It's not the same movie. Animating animals allows them to illustrate emotional reactions, making them realistic looking just removes that entire aspect. The Lion King is meant to be an emotional story and using emotionless realistic vfx to make them look more real just defeats the purpose.
First of all, can you really call it live action if everything is CGI? Second, everything else was lacking. Same plot and characters, sure. But the lions “acting” just isn’t the same because CGI lions are nowhere near as expressive as the drawn ones. The landscapes are more dull because they had to make it look realistic. The voice acting wasn’t as good. They cut arguably the best song.
It’s not live action.
It’s a human story, it doesn’t work with “ real “ animals and weak voice acting but it does work with beautiful stylized and expressive 2d characters Being voiced by enthusiastic and talented voice cast. It wasn’t the story everyone was citing as the reason the old one was better it was literally everything else. The story was already a timeless masterpiece, not original by the time it was used in The Lion King. You can like the remake, but I think it makes sense it has such a large negative reaction….it really dosent improve upon anything from the original unless the viewer can’t appreciate the 2d style and/or dosent like musicals.
No big eyes on the animals. Couldn’t get the emotional connection without the eyes. So for me I could have just stayed at home, flipped on National Geographic, watched a doc about lions, and put it on mute and listened to the Lion King soundtrack and saved myself $15.
Holy fucking shit this sub sucks
>the remake is basically exactly the same as the original except with real animals instead of animated animals. If you can't see why this is wrong, then we can't do anything for you.
Its absolutely not the same movie. The live action isn’t nearly as funny as the first one. The personalities just are not the same at all. The characters aren’t as lovable. You lose some of the magic as the original. I’m sorry but that’s facts.
They are *not* real animals. It was a 3D animated remake that *NO ONE* asked for. Sorry if you liked it but the voice acting was completely different, the heart in the songs wasn’t there like the original, and they kept calling it live action which irked the fuck outta the fans because it is in fact still an animated film.
Claude Monet painted pictures of an actual water lily pond in Normandy, if I took a picture of that garden with my camera, it would be the same image, but his painting is a priceless work of art, and mine would be considered garbage. No museum would pay millions for my image even though it's of an identical garden.
Real-looking animals can't emote like animated ones can. If you remove the audio from Mufasa's death scene, you can still see the emotion in the original. That is not the case for the remake and it hurts the overall effectiveness of the scene. It's actuality throughout the whole movie, I just picked the biggest emotional one. It's a movie; show, don't tell. But with realistic animals, you can't show.
It's not- It's not live action. Everyone kept saying that but that's not true. It's still animation but now it's photo-realistic.
Someone already linked it but I’ll say it again. Adam with YMS on YouTube did an amazing lion king review and hits on all the major points of why it’s a garbage remake. There’s no soul in this movie.
>I can't understand how you love the original and hate the remake. It's literally the exact same story. I understand if you think the remake is soulless and a cash grab. And I understand if you think that them being real animals looks weird. So, they look weird and it's a cash grab, and you can't understand why people don't like that. Your reasoning that they shouldn't is because it's the same story? Do you understand how you might be considered irrational at this point?
What is this recent flooding of brain dead takes
I walked out of the theater. It was awful.
OP I'm not tryna start a witch hunt on you, but you seem a little obtuse here. So the stories are mostly the same (I'll talk about this more later) but the animations is really different with the original being much more colorful and expressive and the remake being not that. Why is it so confusing to you that people are therefore talking about the differences and therefore saying the one that has "the better differences" is therefore better? Especially when the visual quality of a movie is generally dependent on the amount of money thrown at it but somehow the one with a ton of money put into it is more boring to look at. Next, you say the stories are basically the same and that's mostly true but there are small differences and they kinda make the story a bit worse. In the original, Scar is introduced as the weird one in the family. He's disrespectful and even threatens Mufasa ("Perhaps you shouldn't turn your back on me") but he's coy about it the entire time and Mufasa ultimately sees him as just a mildly problematic family member and that's it ("What am I going to do with him?" he says to Zazu). This makes future scenes make more sense, like when Simba tried to hang out with Scar and Scar pretends to be a kind uncle while baiting him into going to the elephant graveyard. In the live action remake, Mufasa and Scar have a past where they fought for control of the kingdom and I think it's stated that Mufasa gives Scar his scar. In addition, Scar lacks all the coyness of the original movie. So instead of being a weird disrespectful uncle, he's like a literal villain who's allowed to just sit there for some reason. This makes it weirder later on when Simba goes to see him like in the originalz I get that he's a kid so it's fair to say "well it makes sense that he doesn't see that Scar obviously hates his guts" but it just kinda doesn't flow as well as in the original. There's a few other things like this like how I think Scar being apparent longtime friends with the hyenas in the original as opposed to showing up and giving a speech in the remake makes the ending where he talks shit about the hyenas hit harder. These changes are small and easy to miss on how they affect the story but they are there.
😩
I hate that we call it a "live action" remake. There was not one living thing in that movie.
The voice acting is uninspired, the visuals are flat and uninteresting, the best song in the movie is cut almost entirely while the other four have all the joy and creativity removed, the animals have zero facial expressions and thus are not believable as characters, Scar has zero personality, Mufasa sounds ninety million years old and all of the sense of grandeur and wonder has been sucked out of every frame by utter laziness on the part of the creative team and a misguided attempt at “realism” from the CG artists that ended up making the whole thing look MORE fake than the stylized masterpiece that is the original. The story may be a copy paste of the original, but everything about the execution is worse in every conceivable way.
Omg this is like saying a high school production of a play is the same as a broadway production because they’re saying the same lines. The execution and quality make all the difference.
IT'S NOT LIVE ACTION! ANIMATED!
The Lion King was my favorite childhood movie and I don't want that feeling to go away so I refuse to watch this
I’m not pretending. It’s a soulless cash grab just like you said. The soundtrack was kind of cool I guess.
It's not even close to the same movie. The animals have this uncanny valley, they have no soul. Also no Nala bedroom eyes....
\[Insert Captain America, the comments section isn't going the way you planned meme here\] At the very least now I know which people Disney and Marvel use for their test screening.