The Lion King was a big deal for Disney because when it was originally conceptualized, no one thought it would make a dime. It proceeded to be one of the company’s most profitable films, and then went on to fuel an extremely successful international hit musical. But the concept of a “live action” CGI driven Lion King has had many fans scratching their heads, and wondering if this was perhaps a bridge too far for Disney.
And indeed, the bridge was very far.
The clips shown on daytime television, showing the original film side-by-side with the remake were probably intended to assuage audience concern, when they did the opposite: They pointed out just how much style and creativity had been leeched from the original project for the sake of selling us another Disney product. Given the relatively warm reception received by The Jungle Book (which Jon Favreau also directed, hence being given the reins here), Disney clearly thought that they had a winning formula on their hands. But there are two key differences between these stories—The Jungle Book’s central figure is a human actor the audience can connect with, and because Mowgli’s story is bound up in his learning lessons from jungle animals, it still works when those characters appear more animal-like. It’s simply a part of how that particular narrative functions.
Not so with The Lion King. These characters are all we’ve got, and realism doesn’t help a story that never prioritized realism before. Why extremely anatomically correct animals was Disney’s goal here is anyone’s guess. But that’s not the only problem; in addition to the featureless CGI animals, the actual direction is overly-stagey and contains no thought toward dynamic movement whatsoever. As a result, moments of the original film that were stacked with drama simply… are. A perfect example of this is the stampede scene that results in Mufasa’s death—it looks like a very realistic stampede. The only time the stampede feels harrowing is when we first lose sight of Mufasa, but the rest of the time, it’s just a steady tread of many wildebeest. One of the key moments in the story loses all its momentum, which is then magnified when young Simba cries over the body of his dead father, but his face is incapable of showing emotion. All the tension of the story bleeds out, and we’re not even halfway into the thing.
There’s another problem that Disney clearly didn’t anticipate; the emotional reaction to realistic-looking animals is fundamentally different from the kind you get in a cartoon. When something is animated and more human-like, you relate to the characters more like human beings. But when the animation is trying to make your brain believe you’re looking at real animals, your reaction to their struggles is removed a step. In effect, watching The Lion King now feels more like watching a nature documentary. That doesn’t mean that you won’t emotionally engage with it, but your reaction to a cute real-looking baby lion is never going to be the same to a two-dimensional animated lion who reads more broadly like a human child. It causes a type of cognitive dissonance that removes the audience even further from the story.
The Lion King’s strongest point is its cast, who all deliver lovely performances that struggle to break through their expressionless CGI counterparts. The importance of casting a film that depends on the landscape and cultural heritage of Africa with mostly black actors cannot be overstated, and should have come with the freedom to really enhance the story and change things up. Unfortunately, none of these great performers are given material worthy of them, and sometimes the script actively hampers their efforts. (Chiwetel Ejiofor makes an excellent Scar in the first couple of scenes, but the film’s hamfisted and half-done iteration of the villain’s iconically camp “Be Prepared” effectively ruins the character.)
Buy the Book
The Border Keeper
Sometimes the movie seems like it could have worked better as an audio drama, but that’s really only in the moments when the actors are given anything new to work with, which is rare. For this reason, Timon (Billy Eichner) and Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) stand out as the film’s most dynamic turns by far, seemingly given more freedom in their space as comic relief. But it’s such a small speck of brightness for a movie that fails to inspire the emotion that the original evoked. In addition, if the film was so insistent on making the characters look realistic, they perhaps should have behaved more like real lions—but then that effectively ruins the premise of needing another “king” to stop Scar’s reign. Sarabi and Nala could have taken care of that nonsense well before it began, and Simba would be living with his adopted uncles/roommates.
There should be more to say, but there isn’t. The Lion King isn’t even interesting enough to warrant deeper critique or thoughtfulness. It simply exists, and it doesn’t do or say much, and now people feel obligated to take their kids to it because it’s summer and hot outside, and why not?
Perhaps it is the nature of the beast, as it were: Disney’s most surprising hit is the one that they’re least comfortable altering. But the ability to try new things is what made the original animated feature a success, the same for the musical it spawned. That Disney failed to realize this doesn’t bode well for this endless loop of reboots they’re keen on churning out. When half of the material they deliver prompts a “Why was this necessary?” response, the future doesn’t look all too bright.
Disney makes these films because they make Disney more money, and that’s no one’s fault but our own. Whatever the reason we have for going—nostalgia, the right actors (Beyoncé! Donald Glover!), curiosity—it’s enough to keep this machine running. It’s too bad when it’s equally enjoyable to just rewatch most of the originals from the comfort of your own home.
Emmet Asher-Perrin is just gonna watch the original tonight. You can bug him on Twitter, and read more of her work here and elsewhere.
I have two questions.
One, if the original cartoon didn’t exist, would this movie be viewed better? Most of the criticism I’ve seen is that it feels bland compared to the original, which is fair, but for anyone who has never seen the original, is it a good movie on its own?
Two, I very much understand the blasphemy I’m committing here, but I don’t understand all the fawning over Beyonce being in this movie. She’s an amazing performer/singer/songwriter, but isn’t exactly known for her acting abilities or voiceover work. What am I missing?
At $185 million (domestic), a lot of people thought it was worth seeing — at least once. We’ll have to wait for the second weekend drop to differentiate “opening-weekend hype” from “sustained interest”. FWIW, here’s the analysis on Box Office Mojo. (And a possible contributing factor: Americans fleeing the heat wave that covered much of the country. Surely some economist has done that kind of regression?)
Moreover, audiences evidently enjoyed it, with an “A” CinemaScore and 89% RT audience score versus 53% Tomatometer (311 critics) score.
Like Ms Asher-Perrin, I privately foresaw that “photorealistic animals? but they don’t have emotive faces” might be a problem for this kind of plot, as opposed to a DisneyNature documentary.
If you are going to do this sort of remake, it needs to really shine, in some dimension, beyond the original. The expressiveness is a great point. I haven’t been a huge fan of Asher-Perrin’s commentary, but this is really perceptive and smart.
I was out the moment I saw that they brought on Beyonce, but didn’t decide to include Nala’s fantastic solo song from the Broadway show, Shadowlands. The song is an absolute killer and is a part of a subplot that gives Nala marginally more to do than she does in the movie.
Considering that the only real highlight of Aladdin was the expansion of Jasmine’s role and her new song Speechless, a song my girls sing in the back of the car with a gusto they haven’t mustered since Let It Go, it’s disappointing that they wouldn’t think to do something like that for Nala. Especially when such a good song already exists.
I think we like the cartoon version too much to let this version in![.](//s04.flagcounter.com/mini/Jkzv/bg_FFFFFF/txt_DEDEDE/border_FFFFFF/flags_0/" width="1"/>)
Maybe the uncanny valley principle is just as applicable to CGI animals as it is humans? ‘Dumbo’ seems to have been another casualty. Plus giving Sonic the Hedgehog teeth. I know this doesn’t explain why the Jungle Book works (Mowgli aside). Still…..
Only maybe without any light at the end of the tunnel? Uncanny Valley posits (after a rocky bit halfway through) that eventually a human simulacrum will become so realistic as to be indistinguishable from an actual human being, thus not creeping anybody out. Only the more realistic you make talking animals, the creepier they’re going to seem – because, let’s face it, real animals weren’t ever meant to talk or wear clothes.
Inversely, the looser the representation, the more latitude the animator has, because what he’s creating is actually less real rather than more so.
Let’s face: The stupid “circle of life” idea that saddled the original is still there. Talking jungle animals work well in simple fables, but not in a dramatic story where all those zebras and antelopes that are happily jumping at Simba’s birth are eventually going to be his barbecue and KNOW it.
With the original, I liked the music, and Jeremy Irons’ all-out voice performance as Scar. Oh, and Simon and Pumba were funny. Outside of greed (and Disney IS greedy), remaking that is the very definition of pointless.
@@@@@ 7: Very well put!
@8: Disney isn’t greedy, Disney is a company that exists to make money so they can continue to employ thousands upon thousands of people all around the world – not to mention all the independent businesses that are connected to Disney when they make movies like these, from the caterers to the VFX houses. They identified an audience that will pay for a certain type of product – live-action remakes – and they are serving that audience. Just because a lot of us think these types of movies are “pointless” or “worthless” or “terrible” doesn’t mean the company is doing anything wrong.
In other words, if we don’t like a thing, we don’t have to buy a thing. I haven’t spent a penny of these things, but I don’t begrudge those that do.
So this is basically The Jungle Book but Shere Khan is the hero. That sort of fits with the zeitgeist.
#9: you’ve confused cause and effect. They hire all those employees so that Disney shareholders can make money.
#10: Have you seen the Honest Trailer for the (original) Lion King? “He is on display / To remind us we are prey”
Problem with critics is they go into the movie theater with the intent of tearing it down. They don’t want it to be good, or they wouldn’t have a job.( a real job) is the intent of critics to dissuade people from going to the theater to enjoy an evening of escape? Movies don’t have to be perfect. Most people aren’t looking that deep into a movie. And if you are looking for the flaws, STAY HOME! Let the people make up their own minds. I’ve seen many movies that I thought were great that got trashed by critics that probably aren’t even movie fans.
@chuck no. 12: Critics don’t criticize, they review. Otherwise Roger Ebert wouldn’t have said of The Mummy (paraphrase) that it was an utter delight somehow confected from unimpressive elements.
I’m not turning down a chance to watch this remake based on perceived imperfection. I decided to watch a snippet in order to make up my own mind, and picked “Hakuna Matata.” If you watch it with the sound off, there is no way to tell that they’re singing, much less that it’s a catchy song about being happy no matter what. If they can’t even make their characters expressive for “Hakuna Matata,” I won’t sit through it.
I would like to give the new Dumbo a try, however, because I think that the original was full of soft, round shapes and adorably goofy expressions that would benefit from newer styles of (non-photo-realistic!) animation. I’ll still look for a snippet online first, though.
One of the main reasons people tear down this movie is because of its almost ALL African-American cast. You didnt see Aladdin or Beauty and the Beast getting this much backlash. I feel you could have kept this whole article to yourself and just let people who like, like it. And if you didnt like it, then do what they say. If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all.
@14 – I felt Emily’s piece was a thoughtful, considered take. Part of the purpose of this site is to critically review media and I thought this article was exactly that! Also I don’t think it’s warranted to subtly align the author with racists.
I haven’t seen this movie yet, full disclaimer. My own opinion of why it may be getting less-than-stellar reviews is due to something I’ve seen pointed out on several sites, namely…there are no human actors. In Aladdin, Beauty & the Beast, Jungle Book…all of these had human actors that truly made it a “live action” (with plenty of CGI) movie. This movie is…plenty of CGI? It doesn’t have that human presence that gives us a point of entry. And without having expressive animal faces (a la the animated versions!), it’s tougher to emotionally connect. That seems to me (someone who hasn’t seen it!) a valid reason for why this is getting less praise than some of the other animated-to-live-action conversions.
@14:
I know, right? Just like Black Panther. Everyone hated that movie.
One of the main reasons people tear down this movie is because of its almost ALL African-American cast.
Quite a lot of the cast are not African-American. Chiwetel Ejiofor is British, John Kani is South African, John Oliver and Seth Rogen and Amy Sedaris are white.
@9. There’s one person who might disagree with your assertion that Disney isn’t greedy. And she’s a Disney.
Why would I pay to see a slightly worse version of a movie I’ve already seen? That’s the question I always ask myself with these “reboot/remake” movies. The answer is almost always “I wouldn’t/and I don’t. However, as long as people continue to go see them, they will keep making them.
I wanted to love this movie because Lion King is such a favorite of mine but everything Asher-Perrin says is true. The voice cast is phenomenal but isn’t able to sync up with the animals. I kept expecting Donald Glover and Beyonce to pop up from behind a bush as it felt more like narration then the animals were talking. None of the emotional beats hit home because there is no emotion conveyed how humans convey them. They didnt even look like sad pound puppies.Simba cant cry so when the voice actor sounds like he’s crying it comes off as almost satirical or even mocking.
I kept getting the lionesses confused since they all looked so similar and even the hesitation between simba and the other animals in his adopted home isn’t there.
@18 – I’m aware of the statements she’s made recently, and I’m on her side because she’s not talking about the company as much as she’s talking about the executives. Yes, the executives make an *obscene* amount of money. But the executives aren’t the company. Companies can’t *be* greedy because *companies aren’t people*. You’re attributing a human emotion to an inhuman entity. Disney exists to make money, as does every company, including Tor. Do you begrudge Tor the money it makes publishing books? Do you look at the price of a Tor hardcover and complain that the company is greedy for charging so much?
Hi everyone. I am going to see this movie I hope it is as good as previous in 1994.
Companies can’t *be* greedy because *companies aren’t people*.
This is true but only in a strictly exact but extremely unhelpful way. No, a company cannot be greedy because it cannot experience the emotion of “greed” any more than a company can be loving or vicious or envious or proud or selfless. It can’t be greedy any more than a lamp post can be self-indulgent or a mortgage can be miserable.
But a company definitely can behave in ways that we woud describe as ‘greedy’.
And the people in charge of a company are people and can definitely be greedy, and it is a very common shorthand to refer to, say, “Disney senior management” as “Disney”. We could say, for example, “Disney really wants to make a Captain Marvel sequel because the first one did really well”. Now, Disney is a company, not a person, and it cannot want anything. We could say “Disney is worried about losing money on future CGI films in the Asian market”. But Disney is a company, not a person, and it cannot experience worry. We’re talking here about the people (who are people) who run Disney.
So if Disney is doing something that destroys brand value in the long term for the sake of a short-term profit, then, yes, we can describe that as “Disney is being greedy”.
@23 – two things, though. First, they’re making movies that are completely optional to consumers. There are no guns held to heads here. There isn’t any trickery or false advertising or scams, right? The make a movie, they advertise it, it gets reviewed, people decide for themselves if they want to pay for it. That kind of business model doesn’t go well with greed.
Second, are they really “[destroying] brand value”? I’ve been watching the moves this company makes for more than 25 years, and there’s one thing that can be said: it’s extraordinarily difficult to even dent their brand value. This is a company that (and I mean no personal insult here, I promise) people like you were saying was done in the 90’s and 00’s when it was churning out an endless stream of direct-to-video sequels of its classic movies. Every few years Disney does something that “destroys brand value” and yet, they’re still here, and as profitable as ever.
Mortgages are miserable, though. Everyone knows that. It’s the one exception ;)
First, they’re making movies that are completely optional to consumers. There are no guns held to heads here. There isn’t any trickery or false advertising or scams, right? The make a movie, they advertise it, it gets reviewed, people decide for themselves if they want to pay for it. That kind of business model doesn’t go well with greed.
That business model could go very well with greed. If I were a very greedy person who wanted as much money as possible, then making things that millions of people would want to buy without being tricked or forced to do so sounds like an absolutely wonderful idea (assuming I had the ability to make these things).
Much better than making things no one wanted and forcing people to buy them, or just stealing their money outright, because those involve a lot of hard work and possible retribution.
Second, are they really “[destroying] brand value”?
I’ve no idea. That was a hypothetical statement.
Let’s face it: even if the movie were good, I’d refuse to watch it on principle. What is the point of having Chiwetel Ejiofor and Donald Glover in a movie if you can’t actually see them?
@@@@@ 13: I have avoided the new Dumbo so far, but I know I’ll end up caving in because Tim Burton can’t make a movie that’s completely unenjoyable. Even his latest stinkers haven’t been all that bad.
And, in the end, I’d rather watch a bad Tim Burton movie than a good Adam Sandler one. Period.
This is why I never listen to what “reviews” say. I saw the Lion King with my family and we all thought it was wonderful.
We connected to the characters, no problem. As far as Simba not showing any emotion when his father died his pain was clearly shown on his face or, maybe I recognized the look because it has been the look on my face since my mom passed away 5/1/19.
It is a Disney movie folks! Made for everyday people not those who feel their derogatory reviews are necessary to destroy every movie that comes out.
I listened to a review on a movie once.
The movie was “The crying game”; received “rave” reviews. I cried through the whole thing it was such a boring, stupid movie which my mother wanted to see. We walked out! Never listened to a movie reviewer since, I value my own opinion over those who have to find fault over everything
@@@@@ 28: I’m sorry about your mom.
In the end, with movies as with anything else, we are all entitled to our own opinions, and our own taste –even if they are terrible. It’s a free country, after all.
Besides the points mentioned here, another reason I have zero interest in seeing this (even though, on the whole, I have liked many of the live-action takes much more than I expected) is that photorealism wrecks an essential part of the original Lion King: color theory.
The original film uses color brilliantly, and sneakily. Viewers seem to remember the film, except the few minutes of really obvious non realistic color in “Just Can’t Wait To Be King” and “Be Prepared”, as looking “real”. But if you really break it down, the use of color theory to track emotion rather than just mimic landscape is pervasive in the whole film. I suspect that’s one reason it hit the zeitgeist so hard. It’s intense, but also nearly subliminal.
That isn’t there is true photorealism. I haven’t seen it in any of the clips. The side-by-side comparisons very easily show the losses in character expressiveness and cleanliness of lines, but if you look for it, the loss of creative color is a striking and remarkably bad artistic decision.
I saw the animated movie and was not thrilled like the rest of the world. Thus, I’ve never seen the stage version nor will I see this version. But give it to Disney, it knows how to squeeze blood from a turnip. Over and over, it reboots, sequels, re-imagines, regurgitates everything that’s in it’s library. A Wrinkle in Time, I found out was a remake of a poorly made movie I found in a DVD bin. There will probably be an animated version or a Wrinkle as well as a Broadway show….gawd forgive.
BTW, if you want to see an excellent “original” movie, go see the Farewell.
Mph. I’ve never felt inclined to watch the live-action Disney remakes and am especially leery of this one. The Lion King is my second-favorite animated film of all time (after Finding Nemo) and the only one to which I have intense emotional attachment. I love the awesometastic stage musical version, but am afraid to see anyone else mess with it. OK, except The Lion King 1 1/2. That was worthwhile.
Mind you, I always described the 2011 documentary The Last Lions, surely-not-coincidentally narrated by Jeremy Irons (who voiced Scar in TLK) as “the prologue The Lion King 2 should have had.”
But what I really want to know is how the remake portrays the hyenas. Those hyenas were the first villains I ever loved, and I deeply, passionately, obsessively, adored them from early childhood well into adolescence. I still sleep with a (non-TLK) hyena plushie. They had better be done well here, though I can hardly imagine how they could be done badly.
I think that it hasn’t been long enough for a remake. Jungle Book is a much older original, and not as loved as Lion King.
@34/PamAdams: “Jungle Book is a much older original, and not as loved as Lion King.”
In Germany, Jungle Book is the best-loved of all the Disney films :)
From the Washington Post, The only thing better about the new ‘Lion King’ is the hyenas
I saw the cartoon as a kid and loved it. I get to take my own daughter to see this one soon and I hope she loves it.
Greed/art/color theory are fine to talk about, but the majority of those who saw this are probably going for the same reason I am: nostalgia and a chance to re-live it with people that they love.
Disney is made for these experiences.
I agree completely. My daughter was addicted to “The Lion King” while growing up. From watching the movie hundreds of times to going to see it on Broadway, for years everything was about Simba and Nala. I can probably even give credit to the movie for the fact my daughter is now in vet school. I wanted so much to love this, but it just fell flat. Human voices coming out of the expressionless but extremely realistic faces of animals were particular hard to reconcile. And yet they chose to neuter all the animals, which made them just seem wrong.
I liked the live+CGI The Jungle Book movie, except for the dull and flat performance of Christopher Walken as King Louie. Completely the wrong person for that part.
As for lack of expression on the CGI animal faces in The Lion King, that would be a problem. Remember the scene with Simba and Nala in the original where Nala is giving Simba an obvious “Do me now!” look? How can they get emotion like that across from animals when they’re sticking to super realism?
Another movie that suffered from lack of emotive expression on CGI character’s faces is the recent “Christopher Robin”. Winnie the Pooh’s face is pretty much just… there. Not even as much expression as the cartoons had. Paddington Bear in the two live action Paddington movies was far better.
@36: *reads article* Oh, I was wrong. The hyenas did get messed up. To me, that is. Objectively, I can see the plot value in making them less humor and more horror. But while I’ve complained about their “degradation” when adaptations played them for laughs even more, taking that away will change what they are to me. They’re funny, and sometimes scary, and sympathetic to me as hungry minions of a villain who doesn’t care about them, and I will love them forever, nyah. I nonetheless was delighted to learn (via links on Wikipedia) that the original got backlash from hyena researchers — rumor has it that one tried to sue Disney for “defamation of character,” though I’ve never found a verifiable account of that — and wonder if the remake will generate any for its nastier portrayal. Probably not, if it’s not the hit sensation that the original was.
If you want to watch another version that’s good, just go watch the original from Japan: Kimba, The White Lion.
@1: I haven’t watch the original version and this remake seems just fine. It’s wonderful experience and I can connect with most of the scenes. Maybe it won’t top the original, but it still nice nonetheless. Agree with @29, everyone have their own taste and what may seems bad for one might be good for another.
@26: What is the point of having Chiwetel Ejiofor and Donald Glover in a movie if you can’t actually see them?
Exactly! I adore both actors; both have done such varied and nuanced work; and they’re yummy, as well. But I have no interest in hearing their voices coming from creepy, uncanny valley, talking animals.
The original movie was pleasant, but I’m a theater geek, so my fave version is the stage adaptation.
I saw the LION KING movie last week and I adore it. Are we over-analyzing every little thing always anymore? Just sit back, relax, become a child again for 2 hours, and ENJOY!
This actually confirms why I have no interest in seeing this movie at all, even though I’ve enjoyed the other Disney remakes (as rentals) – although I never bothered with Jungle Book or Dumbo. And I’m actually looking forward to seeing both Aladdin and Little Mermaid simply to see how the bringthe costumes, locales, characters, etc to life, as well as to see if they add anything new to the story.
Lion King to me just seems like a straight reboot that doesn’t even add anything new to the story, but also removes most of what gave it any appeal (admittedly, even as a kid, this was never one of my favorites). Taking an animated movie and turning it into basically another animated movie seems pointless to me, plus all the things that have been mentioned regarding the fact that the animals are either going to look creepy with human emotions, or completely flat.
@41/Kate: I was a huge Kimba the White Lion fan when I was nine years old. And if I remember correctly, it didn’t have the problem mentioned in comment #8. In Kimba’s jungle, all animals lived peacefully together and didn’t eat each other.
I’ve never seen “Kimba” but googling tells me that the main villain of the plot is human beings, so I wouldn’t expect the comparison to come that close.
Some of the live action remakes have been enjoyable enough, but there’s not a single one that I would choose over the original.
I actually just watched the original “Aladdin”, and noticed something – when Aladdin is describing Jasmine to the Genie, he doesn’t even mention her looks. “She’s smart and fun…” “Pretty?” “Beautiful!”
(Just had to throw that out there while I remembered it!)
@47/BrendaA: “I’ve never seen “Kimba” but googling tells me that the main villain of the plot is human beings, so I wouldn’t expect the comparison to come that close.”
It was an episodic TV show with more than 50 episodes, so there wasn’t the one main villain or the one plot.
The villains in the first two episodes, the ones who killed Kimba’s father, abducted Kimba and his mother, and then captured Kimba again, were humans. But they also made friends with several humans throughout the show, and Kimba acquired a human sidekick in the third episode. The recurring local villain was a one-eyed lion called Claw, who had a black panther advisor and two hyena henchmen. The struggle between Kimba and Claw wasn’t just about power, it was ideological – Claw wanted the animals to give up their pacifism and vegetarianism and return to the old ways.
This site has an episode guide and some other stuff.
When The Lion King was new, it seemed to me that the writers had taken some story elements from Kimba and juggled them around into a new story.
What is the point of having Chiwetel Ejiofor and Donald Glover in a movie if you can’t actually see them?
I really would think about rephrasing this, because it sounds very much like “these actors are worthless except as eye candy”.
@@@@@ 49, ajay
What is the point of having Chiwetel Ejiofor and Donald Glover in a movie if you can’t actually see them?
I really would think about rephrasing this, because it sounds very much like “these actors are worthless except as eye candy”.
I really would think about rephrasing this, because it sounds very much like “these theater and movie actors should be replaced by radio dramas because they are worthless except as eye candy.”
@2, follow-up to myself:
For the second weekend it made $75 million, for a 60% drop. Blockbuster-scale movies typically have a decay rate of ~50% per week, so it’s steep but not precipitous.
* “The Lion King” (2019) weekend chart at Box Office Mojo
* Weekend of 26-28 July 2019
50 doesn’t make a lot of sense. Can you explain it less cleverly?
52: I got it. Surely the point of great actors is that we appreciate them for more than just their voice? To reduce that to “You only want to look at them because they’re eye-candy” is … objectifying and disturbing.
@@@@@ 53, jcarnall
52: I got it. Surely the point of great actors is that we appreciate them for more than just their voice? To reduce that to “You only want to look at them because they’re eye-candy” is … objectifying and disturbing.
Thanks, jcarnall. I’ve been fiddling with a reply. But you said it simply and well.
That saved everyone else from my TLDR response.
Yeah, no. There is a difference between saying “Donald Glover is great in this, even if it’s a shame we only get his voice rather than seeing him on screen as well” and “What is the point of casting Donald Glover if you can’t see him?” You said the latter.
The former is a criticism that could be made of pretty much any casting of an established actor in an animated film, or in any role where they’re only providing a voice. (We couldn’t see Jeremy Irons or James Earl Jones either.) It would be a daft criticism to make, though, because an inescapable part of animation is that you can’t see the voice actors, so it would be like complaining that your TV picture is flat or you can’t actually feel the heat of the African sun on your face when you’re watching.
The latter is literally saying “this actor has no value in a film unless you can see him. His only value is his appearance, so there is no point in casting him unless you can see him”.
@@@@@ 52 et al:
What is the point of having Chiwetel Ejiofor and Donald Glover in a movie if you can’t actually see them?
I really would think about rephrasing this, because it sounds very much like “these actors are worthless except as eye candy”.
They are indeed fine actors, particularly Ejiofor. They are also eye candy for me. If you want to twist a perfectly understandable tongue-in-cheek comment and make it into a federal case because “objectifying and disturbing” and some such nonsense, do go ahead.
As for eye candy, let’s face something that has nothing to do with sexual mores: pure beauty. I don’t find Audrey Hepburn sexually attractive in the least (wrong gender for me), and we can all agree that the woman had talent, intelligence, and skills to spare. But one of my most prized cinematic moments is watching her come down a magnificent staircase holding floating yards of red fabric. A moment of pure joy and beauty –and wouldn’t you call that eye candy, too?
So sue me.
At least since the first Aladdin, it’s been standard Disney practice to film the actors reading the lines. Then impose his or her facial expression onto his animated character. Not an exact duplicate. More like inspiration. When Robin Williams improvised a riff, they drew the Genie running that same riff. When Uncle What’s-His-Name sneered, that was Jeremy Iron’s sneer.
They could do that with the first Lion King. They could not do that with the realistic creatures of the reboot.
@@@@@ 57: You’re absolutely right.
The practice can actually be tracked as far back as Sleeping Beauty, AFAIK. They used Mary Costa herself plus a dancer for Aurora, IIRC, and there is a reason that Maleficent and Lady Tremaine look a lot alike, as their features were modeled after Eleanor Audley’s, who played both so memorably.
Why are the animals genderless? Why did they feel the need to remove cheech, whoopie and rock from the hyena role but not remove James earl Jones from his?
Honestly…. the movie wasnt horrible like I thought itd be but it was just… boring.
They had a few funny parts but it would soon be replaced by the fact that, for whatever reason, they kept going back and forth on whether or not they were getting the body language right.
The easiest fix would’ve been… the ears… when simba is sad, ears turned sideways or down, body slightly flattened… simba and nala fighting, ears need to be flat back… like lions do.. when simba is being criticized by his dad, ears back, shoulders slumped- these are things they got in the original even if you remove the facial expressions. I didnt even cry at mufasa’s death, I was too busy noticing how weird his falling physics were…
I was extremely invested in the scene where nala was escaping, they had the body language, her body was down, her ears were down, her eyes were big, she actually looked like a scared lion.
And I’m sorry I dont see where it looked realistic. They messed up the body language horribly, I felt like the creators didnt own pets, there were scenes with the hyenas that reminded me of the scooby doo movie, and the close ups… the close up shots were nightmare fuel.
I think the reason the jungle book worked a bit better btw is, if you noticed, the animals had expressive facial feature.