@Winifred Eghrudje I was surprised on how topical that movie was and how it did a great job handling those issues. It's easily one of Disney's best animated films in recent history.
What irks me is that None of the animals look at each other. They all look into the distance as they speak. The dialogue is less acceptable because it’s just side-by-side monologues.
That and the eyes... there is no response to emotion. I scratch my kitty cats and they are expressive. Why not give that basic lid motion to their lions so we can feel what they're feeling?
nerdlingful the dialogue that he used In the example actually almost worked for that specific reason. But that’s not how the scene should look . So here nor there, you are correct
not to mention robin williams was really mad at Disney for using his name to market Aladin because he didn’t want celebrities to replace voice actors for advertisement🤭
Ayrton Smith lindsay ellis actually did a video about aladdin and robin williams, and how he is the reason celebrities voicing characters in movies is so common. it’s a really informative and interesting watch.
Sorry to be that guy, but thats actually how they got Williams to be in the movie. It was specifically in his contract that they couldn't use his voice for any merchandising or tie in products.
The thing I hated the most about the animation was that they never utilized the animals' faces for emotion. All they did was move their mouths when they spoke, and nothing else, even the moving and fighting seemed emotionless. Why bother putting those little light tufts of hair over Simba's eyes and not use them, for like... eyebrows? To show emotion! Take a look at Stuart Little, a cgi mouse from 1999. They put a lot of effort in the way he speaks, moves and emotes. Despite still looking like a real mouse, he still looks believably sad, happy or scared in certain scenes. You can see the muscles in his face being moved to form the expression on him. While in the Lion King, the characters look completely blank ALL. THE. TIME. It doesn't matter how realistic your cgi animals are, if it's in a fun, cinematic movie, make. them. seem. ALIVE.
Don't forget Aslan from the Narnia movies! Another lion who was pretty realistic looking and could emote with his face without it being too "unrealistic".
Raina the Hyper Rockruff YES! Thank you! His cgi was amazing! You can feel the gentleness and wisdom by just looking at his animation, as well as his strength and valiance. Loved those movies
Yes, it was so weird to see Simba crying about Mufasa's death... Hear the pain in his voice... And not see his face emote the same thing... His little ears didn't even go down. Total disconnect
It’s like watching a Discovery Channel documentary where really expensive famous celebrities try and match the animal’s mouth movements- and we are meant to take it seriously.
T3chnym they won’t be able to hear you through the piles of money they’re buried in. Remember the people who make these films ultimately are not Disney executives, but the general viewing public. We pay for them, we make them successful, we vote with our wallets and we vote for MOAR!
I hate the "they're meant for children" excuse. My 8yo sister said she wanted to watch this movie, and I agreed just to make her happy. About 10 minutes in and she goes "if this is supposed to be like the old one, why is this one boring?"
It's a stupid argument anyway. I was born in 1995, but as a kid, I still watched Cinderella (1950) and 101 Dalmatians (1961), talking animated animals were kinda my thing - why would people pretend that kids today aren't able to do what generations of kids did before them??
I also think it's quite a ridiculous argument. Trying to update it for children implies the old was outdated or obscure. Neither of which is true as the animated version is well known and one of the most popular animated films ever made.
Exactly. And why is 2D animation so “outdated” now? Just because we have fancy, high-tech computers capable of creating photorealistic animations, doesn’t mean we can’t also have classic hand-drawn feature films like the old days. Isn’t Disney known for their colourful, bright, and exciting 2D films?? Honestly I just want them to bring back those types of movies. CGI is overrated and defeats the purpose of animation in my opinion because all big studios are all competing to come out with the most visually appealing, realistic-looking movie now. What happened to story?
Yeah I was trying to get my 7 yo cousin to go see the new Aladdin...he told me that his classmates said it was really bad and he didn't want to watch it. He really likes the animated version.
And it also implies that kids are not familiar with the originals and are being tricked into thinking this is a new story. Idk but the originals still seem very popular with kids to me...
One of my professors back in college said never go for realism, go for believability. He used Horton Heard A Who as a key example. Horton is clearly a cartoonish silly looking elephant. But when he moves his skin moves over his muscles and skeleton. He has little fat folds around his joints and ankles. His feet squish a bit when he takes steps. He’s clearly not real, but he feels alive. He feels believable.
That's a foundation I study for art, too! In the end, with movies, comics or even some singular pieces you're telling a story, not showing off realism. Visuals are important, but only to the extent that they immerse you in the plot and the characters. To that extent, expression, motion and gesture far outweigh technical prowess.
There is an argument for photorealism in 3D modeling and design that is about trying to use it to sell a scene and not necessarily about making something look like a real photo. Some of the best 3D renderings I've seen are very photorealistic but entirely implausible, and that's the power of it! It's all still a creative medium. Belief is definitely the right word, it's about making something that could be, because we already know it isn't. I would say the best example is the CG we don't notice in films, because it was good enough for us to not question it but if you do you realize how impossible/improbable it was.
@@andrewparker5096 Very true, it becomes a balancing act. Realism has its place too, but in movies like this the balance feels off. Didn’t mean to make it seem like realism has no place.
Original Simba watching Mufasa fall to his defeat: looks and sounds like a scream of pain and agony. Live-Action Simba: Looks like your housecat for the 6th time THAT day.
Even when he sees his father's dead body up close, there is no emotion whatsoever. How do you screw up one of the most heartbreaking scenes in all of animation??
@@michaelstrong5383 By prioritizing the dollar. I remember the interest in this remake when it first came up a couple years ago. But in hindsight, it truly is a worse in every way version of the original.
@@shr1mpsush1 Lion King is my all time favorite film. The idea of remaking it is like repainting the Mona Lisa. You could try all you want, but you can't recapture why it's so beloved to begin with.
@@shr1mpsush1 The simple answer on why film remakes exist is money, but there are some movies you just can't touch, no matter the price. Princess Bride is one of those movies.
“They’re not for us, they’re for kids! They’re meant to introduce a new generation to these worlds and characters.” You know, you could just have your kids, like, watch the originals.
right? that's the beauty of classic animation! it doesn't become outdated, unlike CGI which as it advances, the older stuff is going to look like shit.
If I had the money for those programs they use, the studio, the team etc etc, I'd make my stories and worlds ive created, into films, brand new ideas that look somewhat real but are still heavily believable and still immerse a person. An alien like Thanos is more believable than a singing lion because thanos isn't connected to real existing things. And even then a lion or a genie can still be portrayed far better if the realism wasn't so specific. If they had tried harder to make it a good blend of realism and fantasy, it would have worked better. But what they wrnt for was "here's some real looking lions that you could easily see in a documentary" I would give ANYTHING to be able to make a good film or show out of my ideas. When I see larger companies do stuff like this, it seems like such a waste. Just make something New, we don't need remakes. We need new ideas
Beyonce is NOT a voice actor. She’s not even being Nala, she’s Beyonce reading a script. I STAN Beyonce as a preformer and singer, but she is not a trained voice artist. Just being “Beyonce” doesn’t make you good at everything, and doesn’t make this movie better
She is bait. People see big name in film, they go see film. Easy. Even though VA (Voice acting) is a whole thing onto itself, people choose actors over VAs because of their name recognition. I think only Japan/anime can sell their anime/games because of the VAs because of the culture there. If we want to make VAs a thing in the west too (as in a big thing) we need to start treating them the same .
Exactly! Some things are meant to be surreal, while others need to be shown realistically. This animated, surreal movie doesn't need to be realistic, just needs to be a good story, point proven with this movie
I never actually saw any footage from this movie prior to this. Man, is it stiff. You really have no sense that the animals are speaking, as opposed to actors speaking over footage of animals moving their mouths.
Kind of like anime, but instead of something that is mass produced by a smaller company on a low budget employing underpaid and overworked animators who are HAND DRAWING every frame ON A TIME CRUNCH, this was made by Disney, who, being the biggest entertainment company in the world, can can afford the best animators in the industry, and can give them as much time as they want to give them. But here we get the equivalent of an anime that has artwork too detailed to animate... except The Lion King remake is in 3D, so more detail should actually mean BETTER animation. But no. Lip syncing is only a worry for 90s and 2000s video game animators, apparently.
The most obvious example for me was the difference in the speech Mufasa gives to Simba after Mufasa saves Simba and Nala from the elephant graveyard. The voice actor might be the same, but the "Live Action" just feels stiffer and less authentic than what we saw in the animated.
Man, i remember aslan from the *chronicles of narnia movie. He was fotorealistic, yet you could tell when he was happy or when he was about to chomp yo face off
Except that animal eyes aren’t even lifeless. My cat is more expressive than these lions. I can be petting her and I can guess at if she’s happy, comfortable, annoyed, all by her mannerisms. So they couldn’t even get that right. It’s just lifeless images imitating life.
The moment that really Disconnected me from the new Lion King remake was even before this. It was The Moment in the film. Mufasa's death. It COMPLETELY removed me from the experience. The child they picked to voice Simba was trying his hardest to give us some emotion. And then to see a completely blank, emotionless, dead-eye stare on the lion's face while this little kid is sobbing and gasping... It just....... It lost me. I honestly almost LAUGHED. Out loud. With all these little kids around me in the theater. I almost laughed out loud. That's BAD. You shouldn't have people on the edge of laughing during what is supposed to be the most heartbreaking moment of the film. It's BAD. That moment Completely lost me. I was disconnected and zoning out for the rest of the film.
I think until Mufasa started climbing the rocks it was very intense, because it was realistically possible. But once Mufasa started climbing, the scene very quickly lost it.
"You shouldn't have people on the edge of laughing during what is supposed to be the most heartbreaking moment of the film. It's BAD." Coming from a Megaman X fan who will never be able to take the words "what am I fighting for" seriously again, that can actually be *_so bad it's good._* X^D Sometimes people _love_ something that was supposed to be serious but came out cheesy. =^p I haven't seen The Lion King remake (didn't like The Jungle Book, didn't like Beauty and the Beast, didn't even bother with Lion King or Aladdin), but from everything I've heard about it online, it seems that's not the case here. =^/
What’s really sad is that we know they can make this work. In the Narnia movies I can easily believe that the animals are speaking. They don’t move EXACTLY like animals do (some humanoid qualities are added) so they are less wooden. AND they have different expressions.
Exactly, like yes its a fantasy universe, which adds to the suspension of disbelief but they were incredibly well animated, particularly for what 2005? Like whoa, it only really clicked for my dad that Aslan wasn't a real lion when we watched it again a few months ago and I pointed out that the animation of him was incredible. Like that movie managed to convince us so thoroughly that that was a real lion talking, and real fauns and foxes and wolves that despite it being realistically obvious that they werent real animals acting, it still very much isnt the first conclusion you come to. Like those movies fucjin proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can brilliantly animate animals, even a little talking mouse with a sword and feather hat, and make it perfectly believable, the new Disney live actions are just a cheap cash grab capitalising on nostalgia of older generations and its disgraceful
Moving exactly like animals do wouldn't even be a significant hindrance - quadruped animals in the real world move in a ton of different ways, walking and running and interacting with each other, but Disney apparently couldn't be bothered or didn't know how to animate realistic quadruped movement. For the original lion king they got the animators to study how real lions move, and converted realistic movement into a cartoony style.
Yes, the problem wasn't that they needed to anthropomorphise the animals. They could and it would have been a much better movie, or they could have incorporated the natural expressions that animals, particularly lions, make. Some hybrid of the two like many 2D animated movies have used would also be a good option. The problem is they went for realistic shapes and textures, but they were so lacking in expressiveness that they were uncanny parodies of life.
Beauty and the Beast (2017) was like this too! even though yeah the castle is dark and brooding and that’s where we spend most of the film, I noticed a lack of vibrancy during such animated numbers like Belle, Be Our Guest, and Gaston, it honestly all felt really cold and mechanical and took me out of it wishing I were watching the original instead of the remake
someone did a color pass on one of the scenes and it looks like a different movie imo. better. but i guess the color matches the amount of heart and passion they put into it.
ikr right, it's so... gray... the original movies had so much color and life, like the original i just can't wait to be king, it really makes you feel like your inside the mind of an excited, slightly cocky child, the new one just looks like a Nat Geo documentary with music, heck even those are better than that mess, cause at least the docs let you see what real nature is like not a lifeless imitation
@abc.animal514 I've never been to Africa so I cant really say anything but also, there's nothing wrong with adding in colour just for aesthetic purposes like the strong orange sky or maybe the jungle area Simba hangs out in could've been more saturated to signify him living in a sort of paradise. Mood is a part of cinema and that can be done through lighting and colours that the Lion King Live Action left out to try and look "realistic". It's the entire point of the video, all expression is lost.
The "live action" nature doesn't help the bad dialogue. Watching realistic animals talk is a huge dissonance. The whole purpose of animated cartoons is showing something reality doesn't do. Really, these "live action" movies are a step backwards. Just because the technology exists doesn't mean our minds will be okay with seeing a non-human mouth articulate speech the same as people do. The over-realistic design is conflicting.
Exactly what I thought. There's a reason these films weren't live-action in the first place. Animation turned to live-action rarely works, unless the animation tried to be realistic (which fortunately rarely is the case). Live-action Lion King is as weird as live-action South Park would be...
THANK YOU! This was my biggest issue with the film BY FAR. The fact that none of these characters can‘t properly emote without looking horrifically unrealistic in a realistic setting is really distracting. I can’t feel the emotions because no one looks like they’re feeling anything. They just look like lions or hyenas or monkeys or whatever. It doesn’t work at all. A prime example of this is Mufasa’s death in the remake. In the original, you can see the sick twisted glee in Scar’s sneering face, as well as Mufasa’s shock and even horror at the betrayal. Scar literally clamps his claws down on Mufasa’s paws and then throws them off the rock after taunting him to his face. In the remake, Scar just shouts “long live the King!” and smacks Mufasa in the face. It doesn’t even sound like Scar is enjoying himself, which he SHOULD be. Then they follow it up with the shitty zoom out/in (I can’t quite remember) of Simba yelling no, which looked absolutely horrendous. They took quite possibly the single most significant and memorable scene in the film and made it a pathetic shadow of its former self. That pretty much sums this film up for me. It’s an hour longer than the original, mostly because of scenes that go on for too long and pad the runtime (I’m looking at you, dung beetle rolling ball of shit scene). I have several more things I’d LOVE to complain about, but I’ve spent enough time complaining already.
And not only are we seeing a non human articulate like one, were hearing VERY famous people we know as these non humans and it makes the disconnect even more so
@@a_fine_edition2746 When I saw that moment, I freaking laughed, seeing that's the way they decided to do it. When you're laughing at a moment that's supposed to make you feel dread that somebody just died, you have a problem
@@a_fine_edition2746 People think the remake butchered Be Prepared (and they did, no argument there), but I thought the entire stampede scene and the death of Mufasa was butchered even more. Even Scar's "Long live the king" line was really off.
they should’ve done what the creators of Rango did, which they had the voice actors physically act out the scenes with dyi sets to get the emotion right
That makes them so much more immersive! I just watched Fantastic Mr. Fox and they did that same thing. Not only does it drastically shift the tone of the movie, but also you can just feel the actors having fun and enjoying themselves.
That's because it's the simple VFX workers that put the efforts, while the higher-ups don't have to put much effort into it. But it's the higher-ups that get the credit and big paychecks.
Can sum it up quite simply- this film made commercial sense, not artistic sense. Does anyone really believe they thought Beyonce was the best choice to act in anything?
boiwhybother there is also thousands of people with jobs that Disney is responsible for. If they only made new original movies that hit their desk, many of those people would be out of a job
@@kregadeth5562 It's very short term thinking, though. Every time you cash in like this, you're harming your brand in the long term. There was a time in the 90s when people just had to hear "Disney film" and they were so excited, without any plot details, same as Pixar in the early 2000s. Now people hear those brands and tend to think "hey, that might be good", but before it was "this is going to be great". You can't put a price on that.
I don’t believe the whole “It’s for a new generation” excuse. My little brother was 8 years old when we took him to see this and let me tell ya, he was bored out of his mind. He kept fussing that he wanted to go to home and eventually fell asleep on my mom’s lap. The next day I put the original Lion King on Disney+ for him and he sat through the whole thing just fine. This movie isn’t for kids, it’s for us. It’s for people that grew up with the original.
@Cyberdemon Mike "ok reviews" Great endorsement, genius... It made a ton of money because there are a ton of idiots easily manipulated by nostalgia and blind to any sense of standards.
The jungle book 2016 i think is the only disney remake to make all the characters feel alive and also capture the spirit of the original whilst adding new things/putting their own spin on it.
2nd best. Beauty and the Beast was really the best. Even the the creator of this video admits “to the exception of Beauty and the Beast” referring to how bad the live action remakes are.
@@maforo85 Beauty and the Beast was a pale imitation with nothing new to say. I saw it in theaters, and I walked out of that theater feeling... just kinda hollow.
I think it's a bad cop out to say their script doesn't allow them to show their talent. No matter how talented they're, they're bad voice actors period.
A lot of people seem to think acting and voice acting are the same thing, when voice acting is an art in and of itself. That's the issue with tying a ton of celebrity actors to an animated/computer-animated film. If the animation and/or writing isn't stellar, you're toast.
you're kind of true but a lot of this actually falls on directors. while you record voice lines, there's someone that listens to the actors and they can repeat their lines as needed and get feedback. a good director would give lots of feedback and keep going until you get a really good take That's part of why in a lot of movies with small budgets that manage to buy a large actor, you'll notice a rather steep degrade in their acting. they either aren't paid a lot, or the director gives them very few chances to redo lines This isn't an excuse for bad voice acting but it can make it a bit hard to pinpoint if its the actors fault or the directors fault, because Disney in the PAST has been pretty damn good when it comes to actors, even famous people, but it is possible that their new standards means getting names and not talent. I think honestly its probably a mix of both, but having good direction can make "meh" voice acting a little more tolerable
Yeah the fact that Seth Rogan and Billy Eichner were able to do it in this film proves that wrong! Chiwetel Ejiofor, even with a lot (and I mean A LOT!) stacked against him in terms of the script and execution of Scar was able to at least somewhat give life to the character. People just don't wanna admit that Beyonce is a terrible voice actor, and James Earl Jones really phoned it in the second time around. They'd have been better off dubbing the Mufasa audio from the original over the new footage!
The stigma that it's "For kids" equals bad or stupid is so.....short sighted. I think much like Mary Poppins, there's a lot of value and magic in making creative good content for children that adults can heavily appreciate. Avatar being a good animated example.
Exactly, I seriously wish they'd have stayed with their 2D art, or at the very least, went full ham with the CG and created fantastical settings, environments and sights that you couldn't do in reality. Using CG to recreate reality is just really short sighted. To be honest though, I'm a HUGE fan of the movie Fern Gully, and I would honestly love to see what that would look like if it was fully redone in CG. It'd be like a Disney version of Avatar. :D
Just because adults can appreciate it doesn’t mean adults who are nostalgic should have a say in how the movie is made...The art of the movies is squandered with an attempt to “right” these “wrongs” that millennials complained about the original movie. But what we loved about the movie as kids WASN’T the plot, the acting, the dressings...it was the storytelling. The art of subtlety at times. The music. *How it all ties together into a cohesive unit...a true masterpiece* When the story is already there, it’s hard to retell it and still make it art. Hard but not impossible. What makes it impossible is millennial’s high expectations.
Ironically some of these movies end up being more childish than the animated originals, for example how they made the pink elephants scene in the dumbo remake more light hearted and family friendly or how they wrote an entire song about jasmine being "strong and independent" so that even the dumbest kids could understand it.
@@Andrej229 Its true. Even in the Lion king remake, during Hakuna Matata. . . in the original, Pumba said "And I got downhearted, every time that I-" and then Timon stopped him saying "Pumba, not in front of the kids" and it was a classy moment in my opinion, cuz its a disney movie and they don't need full on toilet humor. Whereas the new one they just let him sing the whole song "and I got downhearted everytime that I farted" and it just made they whole thing that much more childish.
The voice acting in the remake reminds me of a bunch of middle school kids who took drama just to fill out their schedule and are asked to put on a play they hardly practiced due to their lack of any care
In The Chronicles of Narnia they did a great job with Aslan, portraying emotion through his face while he was talking, and that was cgi in 2005. With current technology they could have done even better nowadays, so they really messed up with The Lion King
The problem with hyper realism is they can't. Animals literally don't have the facial muscles to make the expressions. And as shown in the video, they modeled the characters on physical, real-world examples.
The funny thing is that they could have actually done them good. Look up the rejected concept art for this movie. They look so cool and expressive. But Jon Favreau rejected them because he wanted a 'realistic' movie.
Robin Willams himself only signed on to Aladdin because he asked them to not smack his name all over it and that they wouldn’t make HIM “Marketable”. Genie or otherwise. They said yes but broke that promise and Willams wanted to backed out. Love your videos man can’t wait to see your movie!
well he couldn't 'back out' at that point. but he did pubically call them out and refused to come back for the sequel. they eventually worked through it before 3 came out and he returned
They got Robin Williams cause as a pitch to him to do the movie they made pencil sketch animation of his character doing some of his stand up routines and he liked it and agreed to do the movie only if the genie wasn't in the marketing as far as merchandise and Disney Didn't live up to there agreement and we didn't get him again until the second straight to video sequel
I've been more or less "half-and-half" about this issue. On one hand, if Robin didn't want Disney to use HIM as marketing, he had every right to make that request, and it should have been respected. On the other, The Genie is Disney's character, and they had every right to use the CHARACTER in as much marketing as they wanted.
That "it's just for kids" argument needs to drop, especially in the case of Disney. Disney itself was _never_ meant to be _just_ for kids. As Walt himself put it, "You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up anyway." People need to understand that a movie exempt from explicit content doesn't make it isolated from an adult, or even teen, audience. You also reach a wider (and more profitable) audience by expanding your demographic, and this is something Disney is fully aware of, hence the endless nostalgia-fueled cash-grabs. There's definitely value in a well-developed story that a child as well as an adult can fully enjoy and critic. Even if a film was only meant for kids, one doesn't have to make it a trash fire because "kids are too dumb to understand." The 90's Disney renaissance is proof of that. People need to _stop_ undermining the intelligence of kids. Kids learn very quickly and very easily, and are a lot more aware than people like to believe. If all you have to offer them is colorful garbage, then how do you expect that perception of "kid = dumb" to change. edit: just added a space
Well said, I could not agree with you more. Kids actually posses the best powers of observation in ANY human timeline. Their "job" is to make sense of the world around them and adapt to it; so insulting their intelligence is infuriating.
That phrase for Disney would drop after my idea for Olympus Centuria gets released. With a mecha anime inspired animated series having mature themes, a dark, epic tone, and some comedic moments. Many would consider my idea for Centuria to prove Disney can’t use the “animation is for kids” excuse since adults can enjoy animated shows for kids too.
Yeah, an honestly, the only reason kids go to the theater and get exited about watching this movie is because their parents get them excited about it and take them. If it was just for kids, they wouldn't even bother remaking all these movies and playing the nostalgia card.
"To give your quote a nice and shiny format, just [alt=255] eight times, copy-paste in an emdash, then type the attribution, surrounding the work with underscores." - I'm Very Angry It's Not Butter, _RUclips Comments Section_
What about the original model Thomas series? 11 seasons of full on model trains with clay faces that needed to be swapped inbetween shits for emotion and still give more emotion than the 9 digits big budget 2019 disney lion king
I’m sure a petition would work!! The stupid comments people made that went viral changed scenes in live actions! I’m sure they’ll hear this when they see more people support it.
Like literally Atlantis, Treasure Planet and Road to El Dorado are the movies that deserve to have a live action remake, but they’ll probably not do it.
For me the scene that killed me and was the last nail in the coffin was the scene were Simba sees Mufasa falls for his death. In the original the face is clear that he is losing someone, that he is in pain. In the remake there is just a face of a lion cub that sure is in pain, but not as in a distressful pain of losing someone, is just the face of an animal in pain, there is no human emotion, no facial expression you can relate to, just an animal in generic pain (wich can be sad, but not for this type of story were the animals are supposed to feel human). Now, how can you fix this: 1) Make a more cartoonish CGI movie (I mean, your movie is completely in CGI, why make it realistic) 2) Make a documentary about lions in CGI (because if you wanted to show off CGI and how realistic these animals look then why don't make a documentary about them to make them feel real)
Honestly Aslan from the Narnia movies is a hundred times better. And its like a decade old. He looks like a real lion, but there is enough human expression in his face that actually conveys how he is feeling and thinking.
People who use "it's for kids" excuse on Disney live action reboot is very weak, plus if I was a kid I definitely wouldn't be entertained by how real everyhing looks. The realistic colors all look dull
Honestly the only reason I still kept watching the movie in the theater and didn't walk out is because I was entertained by the kids doing stupid things
Nalas original "I will." Was just so... I don't know how to put it really. It was so simple and reassuring and how a longtime friend actually talks. The new one is so forced, obviously trying to convey and get an emotion from the audience
Exactly! Original Nala sounded like, "I will [because I love this land deeply. It is my home.]" Fake Nala sounded like, "I will [but I am not confident in my ability, so I'm trying desperately to overcompensate by using my deeper octave 'please, believe me' voice.]"
YES! Take it from the perspective of an animation student: This movie actually breaks the principles of animation. There are 12 principles of animation (which were in fact established by Disney). One of these principles is EXAGGERATION. In order to convey an emotion or an action, the facial expressions, poses etc. are exaggerated as much as is reasonable to really hit the point home: "Exaggeration is an effect especially useful for animation, as animated motions that strive for a perfect imitation of reality can look static and dull. The level of exaggeration depends on whether one seeks realism or a particular style, like a caricature or the style of a specific artist. The classical definition of exaggeration, employed by Disney, was to remain true to reality, just presenting it in a wilder, more extreme form." Photo-realistic does not equal better. They stripped this story of all its creativity, heart and life (ironically enough).
No squash and stretch either......can you provide a link to any of your school work. I’m almost fifty and would have died to go to animation school but parents said no
That point about exaggeration is most of what's wrong with Code Lyoko Evolution now that I think about it. Though that series has nothing to do with Disney.
@@abigaildeeks8328 you can actually find many videos regarding animation and it’s principles right here on RUclips! Aaron Blaise’s channel is a good place to start; he was at Disney while they were still doing 2D stuff and has an online course on his website as well. It’s never too late to learn!
Me too! Whenever I watch an original hand-drawn 2D animated film, I'm always impressed with how much detail there is in them. I hoped that The Princess and The Frog would make it popular again. 🙁
@@Missjunebugfreak They tried but it among their newer films, it didn't catch on as much. Everyone remembers Tangled and Frozen, but The Princess and the Frog barely get a mention.
@@fernandobanda5734 Tangled is really good though, so of course people will remember it and love it. Frozen... Hm, I can't say what people liked so much about it but it isn't terrible. Just very confused and so under-developed. I mean, when even I can come up with a better idea based on it, it's bad. The songs are catchy though, I admit. I think the Princess and the Frog barely gets a mention because first of all, there's tons of racists out there angry that the main character has black skin, even if she turns into a simple frog (I am sad that such a good design was swapped for a simple green frog), and then there's overly sensitive people thinking it's either too intense, not appropiate for religious people, or anything else. People love to find excuses to dislike things.
@@iclynnx I'm on the same boat. The Princess and the Frog and Tangled are pretty great, while Frozen only has a good soundtrack. I was talking in general about how they were received, not whether they deserved it.
@@fernandobanda5734 I was guessing that. I'm just a deep thinker. I like to analyse things and write it down. In the previous reply I was analysing the movies, why they were liked or not liked. Wether someone bothers to reply or not, I just like to write things I think. It's calming. Helps me from losing my mind in the real world. It feels like I just stepped into a bubble. I'm safe.
“The beast is fine because he’s not supposed to look human or real” nope the beast does not look fine. the beast looks, to quote Ryan George, “slightly better than a snapchat filter”
Actually the beast does look fine, he looks great, he was adapted well into live action and if you can't see that then you're just a blind hater with no taste, learn to appreciate some things fool
The beast isn't great, but it's fine. It's ok. The thing is, I have high expectations for people spending millions of dollars to adapt my favorite Disney film, and "fine" doesn't cut it. Besides, I think in this case he was referring more to the jarring dissonance between real, recognizable animals and fictional creatures. Even if the beast looks bad, I can still believe he can talk.
He just looked like a hairy person with horns in the live action one. Not bad enough to be funny, but not good enough to actually leave an impression, or stand out.
Name a single person with a kid who hasn't seen/heard a favorite movie a million times? My cousin was often mouthing the lines and songs while rolling her eyes when her daughter was watching a show/movie for the 5th time in a day. Adults often have to watch children's films/cartoons.
@@Cerinaya Hell, when I was 4~6 I remember I watched Nightmare Before Christmas and Transformers The Movie both about 2 to 3 times a day! We had multiple tapes! LOL
I came here to see if anyone made this comment before I made it. This isn't for kids. I'm with the youtuber that it's a nostalgic hit that Disney knew a bunch of 80s and 90s kids will flock to because we love(d) these movies. The original lion king is my absolute favorite movie of all time. I'm 35, haven't seen it in a few years but wouldn't mind seeing it again. I can still repeat lines (i repeated the first clip eyes closed) but I have no interest in seeing this one. It's just wrong some how. And if I want a future kid of mine to see the Lion King it will 100 percent be the original ... If I want live action I'll try to see the Broadway musical. Not this. ((Side note. Some how Beauty and the Beast was ok. I went with my friend and her sister to the movies. And sang to the Be our Guest song. It was funny because all of us 20-30 year olds were singing along. But it was ok for that movie.))
I agree with you, but honestly, you don't even have to think up a counter argument for this. As soon as someone responds to 'uh, it's a bit terrible' with 'it's for kids!', then you know they've lost.
I noticed a VERY small detail in the "Friend Like Me" scene in the animated Aladdin. Genie writes down on a note pad, which is a sequence like, a second long. I noticed that the scribble reminded me of Arabic, so i paused it, and loaded up Google Translate. Lo, and behold, the "scribble" was actually Persian for "Turkey Pilaf". And what does Genie serve Aladdin? A damned turkey! THIS is level of "Blink and you miss it" attention to detail that makes Disney special. They could have easily just put literal scribble there, but NO! They decided to actually go that extra step for the extra observant.
The scene that really got me was Mufasa's death. I _heard_ the emotion, audibly I could tell Simba was sad. But visually? Not at all. He still had the same face he had _the whole movie._ It really took me out of the moment seeing Simba with just a basic lion face while talking as if he's near tears. Edit: This has nothing to do with what was mentioned in the video, but I just want to add on that I wasn't a huge fan of CYFTLT because it just felt like Beyonce singing instead of a duet. It's supposed to be a duet, and instead Beyonce is powering over Glover and that kinda ruins it imo. The song is essentially Beyonce singing while Donald Glover is just kinda there.
Same. I cry every time I watch the scene Mufasa died (30yo and still do), and I went watching the live action bringing way too much Kleenex. Mufasa died and I felt absolutely nothing.
6:41 What's really unfortunate about that scene of Pumbaa is that I have no idea what he's saying or thinking. This "animated" movie is so un-animated that, without the audio, it's impossible to read the characters. Which is basically antithetical to how a good animated film - or film in general - should be made. Same with the scene of Simba and Nala at 2:31, if you mute the audio. Their faces are so flat that no emotion comes through at all. They could just as easily be talking about the weather. . As an aside, one sadly ironic thing: If the recent versions of The Lion King and Call Of The Wild had swapped CGI styles, both would have been better movies for it.
I've never seen the recent Call of the Wild movie, but looking at the trailers, my problem was that the dog was emoting too much. And yet, I agree, that kind of CGI would have fit a lot better in the Lion King remake.
@@michaelstrong5383 Yeah, the dogs in COTW are photorealistic, but their faces all have the musculature of a human head. Which is uncanny-valley as fuck. Especially when these dog-human hybrids are placed inside a real world filmed on actual sets alongside actual human beings. In COTW, making the dogs *completely* realistic, even at the expense of emoting, would have been the right call. After all, most humans can still read dogs' natural body language, so you can still make them act well enough. . OTOH, since The Lion King was 100% CGI, it would be possible to take that slightly cartoony human-esque face aesthetic, and apply it to the entire world. Which would make it much less jarring, if the overall look and feel was unified. And then you'd have characters who actually could carry the emotional heavy lifting, rather than staring gormlessly off into space because their faces didn't evolve to convey nuance.
I think the great example is detective Pikachu They made pokemon look real to a point that they can fit into the live-action world but didn't make them too real to make them look like nightmare monsters
You know what would be great? Some gritty animated films with the kind of realism they're doing. They could make some really cool creatures and beasts that look real and make you feel like you're in the movie. It could be the best animated creature/beast/monster yet.
Avatar the Last Airbender isn't just a "kids show" or an "animated show," it's a hecking masterpiece just like the Disney Renaissance films. The story and action sequences fit best in animated form, and trying to "correct" that by making a live action form because you think that live action is inherently superior is honestly kind of disrespectful imo
The Robin Williams voice acting clip also highlights something else; his performance is totally suited for animation. Like it literally couldn't work in live action. Even if you've never seen Aladdin, even if you close your eyes, you're hearing an animated character voice.
Its like when they had the sonic trailers. They went too real on Sonic and he didn't look right. After they tweaked him and brought back some of his cartoony features he looked like Sonic.
It's also important to remember that being a talented actor does not necessarily translate into every kind of acting. Stage vs. t.v. vs. film vs. musical are all DRASTICALLY different styles of acting and require entirely different techniques. This is especially true of voice-acting. You see it happen pretty regularly where a much loved actor is cast to voice a character for an animated movie or videogame but they wind up being replaced because it just doesn't turn out. For example, Peter Dinklage was the voice of the protagonist's "ghost" in the game Destiny but they wound up replacing him after everything was recorded because it just wasn't up to snuff. I have yet to see anything with Peter Dinklage in it in person that he doesn't absolutely nail. But that voice acting was really... not great. And he was replaced by Nolan North, who is extremely talented and is a pretty huge name in the V.O. community but most people haven't heard of him because he almost exclusively does voice work. By casting nothing but celebrities who have no previous voice-over experience, they were dooming the movie from the start.
"Realer isn't better when real already exists" is a sentence I have been trying to find the words for years since I saw the Jungle book reboot years ago.
My daughter could barely hold her attention for more than 10 minutes in the live action, yet she never took her eyes off the animated one. Goes to show how the magic of animation, music, story and everything in between captivated her.
Speaking of Nala with Simba. There's this scene where they tussle and she ends up on her back. The look she gives him is all for the adults in the room, but can you imagine that...thing, trying to emote that??? the whole idea was preposterous. :) you gonna make a 'real life' version of the Lion King...LET THE ANIMALS EMOTE!!!!!! And never dare tell me you can't, Disney. You got the money to have the deity of your choice do the ticket-sales for you.
"They're not for you, they're for a new generation" ... I wasn't even alive when most of the Disney films were made, I still watched and loved them as a kid. I mean who told kids the the 1960s as they bundled into the cinema to watch Snow White that they'd be better off with a live action remake. Who told kids in the 1990s that 101 Dalmatians wasn't worth seeing if it didn't have non-talking dogs and Glenn Close. Disney movies are for everyone, no matter the generation, that was literally the whole basis of Disney when it was established. So to hear the company now talking about how their films "aren't for everyone", all they're doing is shooting themselves in the foot.
I honestly couldn't believe there were some people defending that piece of garbage. The Lion King was the last straw for me in terms of live-action remakes.
The animation was visually impressive, but that's about it. There weren't really that much changes, which defeats the purpose of a remake itself. If there's not much you can change or improve, then what's even the point of remaking it in the first place?
@@nekonomicon2983 I look at the Lion King remake as what Avatar was 10 years ago: A film that depends on the technology but offers nothing new plot-wise. Only difference is that while Avatar gets sequels after sequels, I can't imagine anyone remembering this movie 5 to 10 years from now.
So here's something that I randomly thought of after watching this: What if this movie was a silent film? Considering that they went so far out of their way in terms of visuals and how realistic they wanted it, what if they just threw voice acting into the trash bin and went 100% visual storytelling? Any music could be turned into background music to help set the tone of the scene it came from.
That could have worked if they’d bothered to animate emotions. But as it stand we would have ended up with an incredibly boring and lifeless nature documentary.
I was thinking the same thing! If this movie was supposed to be so incredibly realistic, why not go all the way and take out the talking animals aspect? It might not make the movie actually good, even if they’d made the animation and expressions livelier, but it would at least show some kind of effort at doing something creative and interesting.
@@Magniflorious nature documentaries are more fun to watch than this. i watch nature documentaries because i enjoy observing real animals' behaviors. If they removed the voice acting, this would just be a simulation of what humans _think_ animals act like (as in it's not even real animals) so they wouldn't even attract the people who watch nature documentaries with that...I'm not sure this is intended for what audience actually. Maybe the cgi geeks.
so, it'd be more akin to spirit: stallion of the cimarron (in the way of storytelling-ish) but cgi lion king (and disney can't touch spirit, it's dreamworks)
Doofus: "It's for kids." Me: "So you were creative and made something entirely new?" Doofus: "Nah, we're banking on nostalgia." Me: "Of kids?" Doofus: "Yes."
Personally, my biggest problem with these remakes is the fact that they're not doing their own thing with them. I mean, look at the animated versions; most of them are already based on preexisting stories, some of which had already been adapted before then. But the animated versions took those classic stories and did their own thing with them. These remakes just try to replicate the animated versions instead of taking the classic stories, building upon them, and doing their own spin on them.
Well, it looks like Mulan will be doing that, thankfully, though I don't exactly like that Disney's creative team is sycophantically listening to the dictates of an OCD third-party company they're collaborating with. [Tencent]
"Hakuna Matata" is the best example of "not recreating the spirit". I watched the remake's version first and then revisited the original. The remake was okay.. but felt pretty souless, like it was just going through the motions. But the original is so joyous, fun, and carefree--it truly represents the meaning of the song. The animals' movements, expressions, and fantastical visuals had SO MUCH PERSONALITY in the original. The remake's attempt at combining photorealism and fantasy is like oil and water.
I disagree with this I believe with the right models you can, but when you the make the 3D models look like real life animals which can’t express as much emotion
I never watched the movie, but it sounds to me like watching a rolling dung ball is a pretty good metaphor for the entire movie. "The Lion King live action remake is a rolling dung ball." Heh.
I really don't get why people say "It's to introduce a new generation to these worlds." Like, you can still show kids the original Lion King, it's still a good movie, and because it's 2D animation it doesn't really get dated. Sue maybe it's not the modern style, but you know who doesn't care what's in "fashion"... KIDS!
Not quite; it's just that this role doesn't make sense for her. She did just fine in Dreamgirls, for example, because it suited her and the most important part of that character was that she was a singer and performer. Casting her as a side character is dumb. Casting her as a lion is dumb. Beyonce's strength is her stage presence, and that's erased here. This is the casting director's fault.
@marianne mccrank So they should have found someone who could voice act well. Choosing her just because she's a celebrity in one occupation. Was a very poor decision on the people in charged of deciding roles.
This comment deserves more attention. They literally kiilled The Lion King and brought it back from the dead and it's ugly and disgusting and it needs to have its head cut off and set on fire.
@@lugbzurg8987 Funny enough, that's a name of a terrible Cartoon Network movie that was a pilot for a terrible live-action sitcom that aired on Cartoon Network called Out of Jimmy's Head.
If they want money for these movies, just re release them in theaters. That would be better of nostalgia Example: last may I saw a re release of Alien in theaters and it actually made me feel more like I was in 1979
@@blubettle1191 Profiting off of nostalgia to sell tickets to bland, bloated, boring live-action remakes is the same thing. It's not original storytelling, just a repackaging of a beloved classic to sell to the masses.
Then again, the lion king remake is the highest grossing animated film of all time now (even though they advertised it as a live action remake). Tons of people didn't care about the quality of the writing or even the character designs, they just wanted to see lion king but with a hyper realistic artstyle because realism is better than surrealism for them. It's why every DC movie was trying to copy The Dark Knight, because people liked how realistic it was.
I can not tell you how much I bursted out laughing when Beyoncé started singing in CYFTLT. I was doubled over in my chair for a good portion of the song. It was just so... wrong, in a way that I couldn’t help but laugh.
I think we need to go back further. When Disney made "Straight to VHS" sequels to their Renaissance movies, they did so for a very specific reason. Those movies were animated by new staff as training. It's one of the reasons they were lower budget and animated so differently from the originals. Now, instead of training new animators on techniques, they test new technology for animation. And in order to justify the cost of investing in new technology, they use a property that they don't need to do anything else with, to prove its it's worth. Another example might be The Mandalorian, where they are using the new background screen tech. Do they test it with a small thing first? No, they dive right in to one of their biggest franchises on their first live action show on their new streaming platform. Disney seems to be trying to make the biggest splash possible in order to justify continuously creating new technology.
Oh my god that's so nice I never knew they where new animator or anything. I thought some where good but most where ok at best. Its nice to know people got a chance to improve and definitely gain confidence when those movies where realised
Counterpoint: The new tech they created for Tangled and Frozen and 2 and Big Hero 6. Which were all big, new, tentpole Disney franchises. You're effectively complaining that Disney is willing to invest in their movies and try to be technologically innovative. Which they've been doing since they started making animated movies. Also, the Jungle Book had the same director as Lion King, and used much of the same tech, and that was pretty good. If anything, it was a dry run for Lion King, with a lower budget and a human lead to ground the movie. I don't know what went wrong with Lion King. And who's the producer on the Mandalorian? Favreau again. Almost like the man has spent a decade and a half of his life working on successful VFX movies, and knows how to work with tech.
I get the feeling that in 10-15 years, this Lion King remake will be like Lion King 2 and the other Lion King sequel/prequel. They'd be mostly forgotten and seen as inferior to the original.
@@magic75450 I get what you're saying, but I've seen plenty of people talk about the other movies. When people talk about this remake in 10 years, it would just be a quick simple "Oh yeah, that was a movie that existed."
"realer isn't always better" makes me think of the uncanny valley effect. It may not be as strong when they're not humanoid but it's still there in another sense.
Too be honest the animation in this film, though impressive, isn't that groundbreaking. The hyper realistic 3D has already been done before. Anyone ever seen Guardians of Ga'hoole.
Oh yeah, I remember watching that movie. The animation studio, Animal Logic, usually do a really good job on having realistic looking animals with emotion without making them look creepy or in the uncanny valley territory.
@@michaelstrong5383 Thats the thing. While Lion King '19s animation is a double edged sword, Guardians wasn't a cash grab that disrespects it's source material and the animation medium itself.
@@thekaijumaster200x3 eh, that said, as someone who grew up on those books they still didnt do a great job with the Guardians movie, they mashed like 3 different plot lines together and mixed two separate factions into one entity. they did have amazing style though in terms of animation
@@beauvillamor621 Oh yeah I reckon its a pretty good film for those who haven't read the books and I'm one of those ppl but ye it was way better than the lion king 2019 remake, there was wayy more expression in the owls and the voice acting was good as well and the animation was on pointt and it felt quite realistic in terms of emotion, it all worked together quite nicely I think but I haven't read the books so idrk but thats my interpretation of it.
Something that REALLY bothered me about this movie, that I feel isn’t talked about enough, is the scene where Mufasa appears in the sky after Simba’s lost his way. The way that it was executed was terrible. You see the problems mentioned in this video, such as the character models having no facial expression whatsoever, in places where there should be an excessive amount. But the way the lines are said in this scene specifically, is actually the worst thing about this film imo. They’re emotionless, and it’s even more obvious when you have a scene that everyone expects to be the emotional highlight of the film. And instead of making Mufasa clear and identifiable as well as iconic and intense like in the cartoon version, it was hard to even see him in this version. Like, I had to go back and watch the scene multiple times to figure out what people were mentioning about him being in the clouds. And that’s NOT GOOD.
Ahh, I didn't even get that far in the movie. I hard quit the movie after the stampede scene because I was so bored and underwhelmed by the whole movie. That scene in the ORIGINAL movie still makes my heart pound, but the remake? Nada.
@@JenamDrag0n I hard quit at the mouse scene in the beginning. It felt like it took ten minutes to follow this mouse going about his day and ending up in Scar’s cave, and then Scar’s voice actor took forever delivering his lines. Nope, thanks, I hated it. Also why does Scar have to look like he’s suffering from mange? Imho, Scar’s villainous appeal came from him being elegant looking.
Closed my eyes and this is what I heard. Original: Acting Remake: reading their lines. No personality, just flat, bland, speaking that gave zero weight to what was happening. Lije, do you remember those old VHS tapes the teacher made the class watch? You know the ones, where its live action but still images and the people spoke as if they were acting. It was always eerily quiet, but at least they gave some emotion. The remake doesn't inspire anything in that one take, and TLK has a big place in my heart as a kid. So I'm glad I never saw the remake. No disrespect to the cast involved, but it doesn't sound like they were trying.
@Cyberdemon Mike To be fair, the live action Cinderella is one of the only good remakes that attempted to do its own thing. It's still not my favorite but it's not on the same level as the other remakes.
It worked for Narnia, with Aslan being voiced by Qui-Gon Jinn. Still, there was a human cast right next to the CGI Lion. Might have been them that made the movie great.
@@JohnDoe-hr4cf Also because Aslan was supposed to be a magical creature, so it's easier to suspend disbelief, whereas Simba and Nala are supposed to be ordinary lions.
It's not even that. Go watch Mr Ed, he's much more believable than this crap, and that's a REAL HORSE. If you can't find that show, then find any "Francis" movie, which features a real mule.
An observation: My generation has become more and more cynical/pessimistic and obsessed with "realistic" visuals and tone. The 80s and 90s felt more like they were marked by romanticism and idealism in it's beautiful music and animation. This attitude extends beyond media, but it feels like media clearly shows this tonal shift in the last 20 years. The differences between the original Lion King and the remake is just one example of how it's difficult to recapture magic because the "realistic = better" mentality. You're totally right. Technology is improving and great, but it isn't used as effectively as it could be in my opinion.
Technology is being used as a substitute for real creativity, the more "realistic" and gritty it is the more refined and mature its considered. There's a lot of people who probably feel like they can't be caught dead watching an animated movie anymore because they're 'too old', but "realistic" talking animals, now that's grown up business. Which is only made weirder given that our generations grew up with the likes of Dr. Doolittle and Ace Ventura.
@@tangdynasty4779 I'm like 25. I said "my generation" for a reason. I don't care what era it's from. I know what I like, and there are things that I like from this decade, last decade, and many before as well.
Do people really defend bad movies as ‘for children’? When we were children our films were better, right? We had the original Disney movies - back when they cared. Why should this generation’s children have to put up with less?
This is what I always say! People dismiss the criticism as just whiney Millennials chasing nostalgia, when, in fact, they wouldn't make any money on this if not for Millennials chasing nostalgia! I don't feel sorry for my generation with these flims, I feel sorry for the ones who are kids now! At least we got new and creative films like Aladdin and The Lion King and Mulan. Now, they had Frozen, and Zootopia (which I loved!), and recently Moana...but more and more all Disney is making is remakes. That just makes me sad for the kids of this generation. They aren't getting moments like seeing the Circle of Life intro in all it's beautifully drawn glory for the first time in the theater (I don't remember much from when I was 8, but I remember that!), or the zany fun of Genie in Aladdin, or the balance in Mulan of soulful songs of self-discovery with moments of comic relief. They're just getting empty imitations of them.
The Jungle Book seems to have been the one that came the closest to getting it right. It follows the book more closely in plot and tone. The whole third act is practically unrecognizable from the animated classic. That's more what these live-action remakes should have done. The "original" films already took pretty huge liberties from their literary and folklore source material, so there was plenty to work with in making the remakes different from their predecessors.
Pete's Dragon was good though, but then I never really liked the original. And Lady and the Tramp won me over, and that's massively attached. It's the version I can watch without crying because it's what I used to watch with my nan every weekend, and obviously it doesn't feel right to watch the original anymore. Lion King, ew - And I LOVE the stage shows and original animated version. Beauty and the Beast, meh. I like original well enough. Jungle Book, meh. Same again. I'll give Mulan a watch but I do not have my hopes up anymore.
Here’s something I like to do just for fun: I like to imagine the actors recording their lines in their booth. It’s a lot of fun, I like imagining their movements and the reactions of the people recording them. I do it randomly, when watching movies, anime and cartoons. What I’ve learned: the harder it is to imagine an actor in a booth, the longer it takes, the foggier the image, the easier I am distracted back to watching the show. The better the voice acting. Scott Freeman as England in Hetalia, Clifford Chapin as Bakugou Katsuki in My Hero Academia, Jessie Flower as Toph in Avatar, Tom Hanks as Woody in Toy Story. I can’t see any of them a booth. I see ... the character.. The easier it is to see an actor in a booth, especially on the first viewing: the worst it is. The more I don’t believe what I see is real.
Ngl, someone sent me a clip of the movie once, and I immediately said "Nope." Scar was prolly one of the most terrifying villains i've known, and thats by the sneer in his voice alone. He SOUNDS like he's plotting your murder as he TALKS to you, as if he knows every secret you've hidden, all the way to its deepest point... AND ITS GONE. Just a guy reading a script with a plain voice... Was disappointed as hell to see them make Scar seem less evil
I probably wouldn't mind Disney's Live Action Remakes if they only did them every 3-5 years, while still having time to make Original Animated Films, like Gigantic, but they're just overdoing it.
Which Disney live action remake is the best? What about the worst?
sneed
jungle book, lion king
King of the hill is my favorite anime
All of them are the best
@@michaelalessandro1499 Exactly. Because all of them are the worst.
I like how the go-to defense for making a bad film is, "it was for kids." As if it's perfectly OK to serve up trash to our future generations.
I feel like that excuse also takes children's minds for granted. They may have much to learn, but they're not idiots.
@@michaelstrong5383 That is why I love Into the Spiderverse
@@RandomSkyeRoses One of my all time favorites
@Winifred Eghrudje I was surprised on how topical that movie was and how it did a great job handling those issues. It's easily one of Disney's best animated films in recent history.
@@michaelstrong5383 r u taking about Into the Spiderverse or Zootopia?
What irks me is that None of the animals look at each other. They all look into the distance as they speak. The dialogue is less acceptable because it’s just side-by-side monologues.
Hadn't even noticed that, but you are absolutely right. It throws everything off.
That and the eyes... there is no response to emotion. I scratch my kitty cats and they are expressive. Why not give that basic lid motion to their lions so we can feel what they're feeling?
nerdlingful the dialogue that he used In the example actually almost worked for that specific reason. But that’s not how the scene should look . So here nor there, you are correct
I didn't think about that... YOU'RE RIGHT.
It just looks so off how expressionless they are. Its sad that Aslan from Narnia looks so much better than this.
The “ha I laugh in the face of danger” line made me physically cringe
It's awful, isn't it?
Yes
Especially
It feels less like Nala and more _Queen Bey._
That was what threw me off.
@@downhomesunset I didn't want to believe you.
not to mention robin williams was really mad at Disney for using his name to market Aladin because he didn’t want celebrities to replace voice actors for advertisement🤭
Man, every new thing i learn about him just makes me wish i could just have had a beer with him.
Yep. That's how we got Homer-genie in Aladdin 2. (Nothing against Dan Castellaneta, he did his best but it wasn't the same Genie.)
Ayrton Smith lindsay ellis actually did a video about aladdin and robin williams, and how he is the reason celebrities voicing characters in movies is so common. it’s a really informative and interesting watch.
Sorry to be that guy, but thats actually how they got Williams to be in the movie. It was specifically in his contract that they couldn't use his voice for any merchandising or tie in products.
Stuie Malan yes and they did it anyways
The thing I hated the most about the animation was that they never utilized the animals' faces for emotion.
All they did was move their mouths when they spoke, and nothing else, even the moving and fighting seemed emotionless. Why bother putting those little light tufts of hair over Simba's eyes and not use them, for like... eyebrows? To show emotion!
Take a look at Stuart Little, a cgi mouse from 1999. They put a lot of effort in the way he speaks, moves and emotes. Despite still looking like a real mouse, he still looks believably sad, happy or scared in certain scenes.
You can see the muscles in his face being moved to form the expression on him. While in the Lion King, the characters look completely blank ALL. THE. TIME.
It doesn't matter how realistic your cgi animals are, if it's in a fun, cinematic movie, make. them. seem. ALIVE.
Don't forget Aslan from the Narnia movies! Another lion who was pretty realistic looking and could emote with his face without it being too "unrealistic".
Raina the Hyper Rockruff YES! Thank you! His cgi was amazing! You can feel the gentleness and wisdom by just looking at his animation, as well as his strength and valiance. Loved those movies
Even my cat has more emotion than the lion king, I mean... lions are big cats, they can be very expressive too
Yes, it was so weird to see Simba crying about Mufasa's death... Hear the pain in his voice... And not see his face emote the same thing... His little ears didn't even go down. Total disconnect
@@CreamIceMs The original was more realistic with animal emotions.
It’s like watching a Discovery Channel documentary where really expensive famous celebrities try and match the animal’s mouth movements- and we are meant to take it seriously.
Exactly.
That's....a great description.
I thought the exact same thing, the _exact_ same thing. Except I thought of Nat Geo instead of Discovery.
It’s almost like Disney’s old films didn’t need remakes. The originals were perfectly fine and work better in animation
Money money money money
Wow, what a concept! Can we get this sent to the heads of Disney please? They obviously haven’t come upon this realization yet
It's almost like that, because it is. You have straight facts right there.
T3chnym they won’t be able to hear you through the piles of money they’re buried in. Remember the people who make these films ultimately are not Disney executives, but the general viewing public. We pay for them, we make them successful, we vote with our wallets and we vote for MOAR!
Orion Dye God help us all… :(
I hate the "they're meant for children" excuse. My 8yo sister said she wanted to watch this movie, and I agreed just to make her happy. About 10 minutes in and she goes "if this is supposed to be like the old one, why is this one boring?"
It's a stupid argument anyway. I was born in 1995, but as a kid, I still watched Cinderella (1950) and 101 Dalmatians (1961), talking animated animals were kinda my thing - why would people pretend that kids today aren't able to do what generations of kids did before them??
I also think it's quite a ridiculous argument. Trying to update it for children implies the old was outdated or obscure. Neither of which is true as the animated version is well known and one of the most popular animated films ever made.
Exactly. And why is 2D animation so “outdated” now? Just because we have fancy, high-tech computers capable of creating photorealistic animations, doesn’t mean we can’t also have classic hand-drawn feature films like the old days. Isn’t Disney known for their colourful, bright, and exciting 2D films?? Honestly I just want them to bring back those types of movies. CGI is overrated and defeats the purpose of animation in my opinion because all big studios are all competing to come out with the most visually appealing, realistic-looking movie now. What happened to story?
Yeah I was trying to get my 7 yo cousin to go see the new Aladdin...he told me that his classmates said it was really bad and he didn't want to watch it. He really likes the animated version.
And it also implies that kids are not familiar with the originals and are being tricked into thinking this is a new story. Idk but the originals still seem very popular with kids to me...
One of my professors back in college said never go for realism, go for believability. He used Horton Heard A Who as a key example. Horton is clearly a cartoonish silly looking elephant. But when he moves his skin moves over his muscles and skeleton. He has little fat folds around his joints and ankles. His feet squish a bit when he takes steps. He’s clearly not real, but he feels alive. He feels believable.
That's a foundation I study for art, too! In the end, with movies, comics or even some singular pieces you're telling a story, not showing off realism. Visuals are important, but only to the extent that they immerse you in the plot and the characters. To that extent, expression, motion and gesture far outweigh technical prowess.
There is an argument for photorealism in 3D modeling and design that is about trying to use it to sell a scene and not necessarily about making something look like a real photo. Some of the best 3D renderings I've seen are very photorealistic but entirely implausible, and that's the power of it! It's all still a creative medium. Belief is definitely the right word, it's about making something that could be, because we already know it isn't. I would say the best example is the CG we don't notice in films, because it was good enough for us to not question it but if you do you realize how impossible/improbable it was.
@@andrewparker5096 Very true, it becomes a balancing act. Realism has its place too, but in movies like this the balance feels off. Didn’t mean to make it seem like realism has no place.
Are you talking about the 2008 movie or the original one?
@@endrinarr5819 the 2008 one, but there are plenty of other animated movies and shows that work as examples too
Original Simba watching Mufasa fall to his defeat: looks and sounds like a scream of pain and agony.
Live-Action Simba: Looks like your housecat for the 6th time THAT day.
Even when he sees his father's dead body up close, there is no emotion whatsoever. How do you screw up one of the most heartbreaking scenes in all of animation??
@@michaelstrong5383 By prioritizing the dollar. I remember the interest in this remake when it first came up a couple years ago. But in hindsight, it truly is a worse in every way version of the original.
@@shr1mpsush1 Lion King is my all time favorite film. The idea of remaking it is like repainting the Mona Lisa. You could try all you want, but you can't recapture why it's so beloved to begin with.
@@michaelstrong5383 on an unrelated note, I'm so glad that there's a silent understanding that no one anywhere wants a remake of The Princess Bride.
@@shr1mpsush1 The simple answer on why film remakes exist is money, but there are some movies you just can't touch, no matter the price. Princess Bride is one of those movies.
“They’re not for us, they’re for kids! They’re meant to introduce a new generation to these worlds and characters.”
You know, you could just have your kids, like, watch the originals.
right? that's the beauty of classic animation! it doesn't become outdated, unlike CGI which as it advances, the older stuff is going to look like shit.
@TheCatsMeow PrettyHorses he didn't say that as what he thinks. He said "the argument i always hears..."
Killian Miller EXACTLY!!! RE RELEASES ARE A THING TOO
I mean it’s not even hard to find. U wouldn’t have to go through an old cd or anything.
Killian Miller I’m 11 and iv watched the original lion king one vhs and I love it! I thought this on was ok
Beyonce's acting sounds like a typical English listening test dialogue in Asia.
Lmaoo she does
Beyonce is trash
@@tacofingerz7247 she's a very talented and succesful woman. Her voice acting tho💀
Disney was more Intersted in hiring voice actors based on their race than their ability. Any fool can see and hear that they both sucked.
@@emmavrijburg6676Fun Fact: originally Tinana from the princess and the frog was going to be voiced by Beyonce but she didn't show up???????
It's disappointing that we have technology that can make hyper realistic animals and we use it to make remakes of movies that were originally good.
Well considering how much money it makes them .... is no wonder why they went that route
Why not make a movie about lions going into outer space with hyper realistic lazers while the warthogs start eating cheeseburgers at Subwhen?
@Extreme Wreck 2000 That sounds like an interesting movie, I’d watch that depending on the execution.
If I had the money for those programs they use, the studio, the team etc etc, I'd make my stories and worlds ive created, into films, brand new ideas that look somewhat real but are still heavily believable and still immerse a person. An alien like Thanos is more believable than a singing lion because thanos isn't connected to real existing things. And even then a lion or a genie can still be portrayed far better if the realism wasn't so specific. If they had tried harder to make it a good blend of realism and fantasy, it would have worked better.
But what they wrnt for was "here's some real looking lions that you could easily see in a documentary"
I would give ANYTHING to be able to make a good film or show out of my ideas. When I see larger companies do stuff like this, it seems like such a waste. Just make something New, we don't need remakes. We need new ideas
I can't believe they still haven't attempted a Black Cauldron remake
Beyonce is NOT a voice actor. She’s not even being Nala, she’s Beyonce reading a script. I STAN Beyonce as a preformer and singer, but she is not a trained voice artist. Just being “Beyonce” doesn’t make you good at everything, and doesn’t make this movie better
Well said
Completely agree.
I never thought Beyoncé was that good of an actress at all.
She is bait. People see big name in film, they go see film. Easy. Even though VA (Voice acting) is a whole thing onto itself, people choose actors over VAs because of their name recognition. I think only Japan/anime can sell their anime/games because of the VAs because of the culture there. If we want to make VAs a thing in the west too (as in a big thing) we need to start treating them the same .
I agree! Its like they just got a host of big names, and said “do your thing”.
"Realism doesn't mean credible"
A phrase that my animation teacher told me once and i keep using each time i see this movie.
Exactly! Some things are meant to be surreal, while others need to be shown realistically. This animated, surreal movie doesn't need to be realistic, just needs to be a good story, point proven with this movie
@Marav Reviews Not all realistic games are bad it just lacks emotion and feels kinda bland in most of them.
I never actually saw any footage from this movie prior to this. Man, is it stiff. You really have no sense that the animals are speaking, as opposed to actors speaking over footage of animals moving their mouths.
J.J. McCullough didn’t expect to see you here, love your channel!
Woah didn't expect you here friend
Kind of like anime, but instead of something that is mass produced by a smaller company on a low budget employing underpaid and overworked animators who are HAND DRAWING every frame ON A TIME CRUNCH, this was made by Disney, who, being the biggest entertainment company in the world, can can afford the best animators in the industry, and can give them as much time as they want to give them.
But here we get the equivalent of an anime that has artwork too detailed to animate... except The Lion King remake is in 3D, so more detail should actually mean BETTER animation.
But no. Lip syncing is only a worry for 90s and 2000s video game animators, apparently.
The most obvious example for me was the difference in the speech Mufasa gives to Simba after Mufasa saves Simba and Nala from the elephant graveyard. The voice actor might be the same, but the "Live Action" just feels stiffer and less authentic than what we saw in the animated.
Yeah they really needed movement in places other than just the mouth. Even *actual* animals look more animated than the CGI ones
Why didn't Disney just release the original in theatres for the Lion King's 25th anniversary instead?
Mike Spearwood how? Haven’t they rereleased Lion King in imax before already?
Because they get to sell two versions of the same story and get the sweet money of a "new" movie to boot
with a live orchestra
tbh I would pay to watch the originals in theaters
It's all about the money. That's Disney's modern motto.
Man, i remember aslan from the *chronicles of narnia movie. He was fotorealistic, yet you could tell when he was happy or when he was about to chomp yo face off
Yeah. He didn’t look like he had Botox on his forehead.
I always forgot Aslan wasn't a real lion watching those movies. In this one, it's hard to believe they're real at all
@@Ziaberry amen
Chronicles.
But yeah.
Damn, never though of this (just how "bland" the characters were looking/emoting). But you're 100% right, Narnia did it better.
It's the EYES. The dead, lifeless, emotionless animal eyes. And crap acting.
Lifeless eyes. Like a doll's eyes.
Except that animal eyes aren’t even lifeless. My cat is more expressive than these lions. I can be petting her and I can guess at if she’s happy, comfortable, annoyed, all by her mannerisms. So they couldn’t even get that right. It’s just lifeless images imitating life.
Real animals have more emotion. even in their eyes.
I was literally thinking that.
@@Rhamsody Beat me to it, good sir. (RIP, Robert Shaw.)
The moment that really Disconnected me from the new Lion King remake was even before this. It was The Moment in the film. Mufasa's death. It COMPLETELY removed me from the experience. The child they picked to voice Simba was trying his hardest to give us some emotion. And then to see a completely blank, emotionless, dead-eye stare on the lion's face while this little kid is sobbing and gasping... It just....... It lost me. I honestly almost LAUGHED. Out loud. With all these little kids around me in the theater. I almost laughed out loud. That's BAD. You shouldn't have people on the edge of laughing during what is supposed to be the most heartbreaking moment of the film. It's BAD. That moment Completely lost me. I was disconnected and zoning out for the rest of the film.
I think until Mufasa started climbing the rocks it was very intense, because it was realistically possible. But once Mufasa started climbing, the scene very quickly lost it.
I actually laughed in the theater :/ and then I just felt embarrassed for the film for ruining one of the strongest and most powerful scenes
"You shouldn't have people on the edge of laughing during what is supposed to be the most heartbreaking moment of the film. It's BAD."
Coming from a Megaman X fan who will never be able to take the words "what am I fighting for" seriously again, that can actually be *_so bad it's good._* X^D Sometimes people _love_ something that was supposed to be serious but came out cheesy. =^p
I haven't seen The Lion King remake (didn't like The Jungle Book, didn't like Beauty and the Beast, didn't even bother with Lion King or Aladdin), but from everything I've heard about it online, it seems that's not the case here. =^/
Wait. Mufasa dies? Spoiler alert man!!! :C
His acting wasn't the greatest either though
What’s really sad is that we know they can make this work. In the Narnia movies I can easily believe that the animals are speaking. They don’t move EXACTLY like animals do (some humanoid qualities are added) so they are less wooden. AND they have different expressions.
Exactly, like yes its a fantasy universe, which adds to the suspension of disbelief but they were incredibly well animated, particularly for what 2005? Like whoa, it only really clicked for my dad that Aslan wasn't a real lion when we watched it again a few months ago and I pointed out that the animation of him was incredible. Like that movie managed to convince us so thoroughly that that was a real lion talking, and real fauns and foxes and wolves that despite it being realistically obvious that they werent real animals acting, it still very much isnt the first conclusion you come to. Like those movies fucjin proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can brilliantly animate animals, even a little talking mouse with a sword and feather hat, and make it perfectly believable, the new Disney live actions are just a cheap cash grab capitalising on nostalgia of older generations and its disgraceful
Moving exactly like animals do wouldn't even be a significant hindrance - quadruped animals in the real world move in a ton of different ways, walking and running and interacting with each other, but Disney apparently couldn't be bothered or didn't know how to animate realistic quadruped movement. For the original lion king they got the animators to study how real lions move, and converted realistic movement into a cartoony style.
Yes, the problem wasn't that they needed to anthropomorphise the animals. They could and it would have been a much better movie, or they could have incorporated the natural expressions that animals, particularly lions, make. Some hybrid of the two like many 2D animated movies have used would also be a good option. The problem is they went for realistic shapes and textures, but they were so lacking in expressiveness that they were uncanny parodies of life.
Planet of the apes trilogy did it tho. Although chimps and gorillas are very similar to humans so it wasn't too hard.
Narnia was one of the few live action adaptations that I jam with.
I can't get over how colourless the live action is too.
I know right? No one seems to be talking about it but the film looks like it's been absolutely drained of life and colour.
It honestly looks awful.
Beauty and the Beast (2017) was like this too! even though yeah the castle is dark and brooding and that’s where we spend most of the film, I noticed a lack of vibrancy during such animated numbers like Belle, Be Our Guest, and Gaston, it honestly all felt really cold and mechanical and took me out of it wishing I were watching the original instead of the remake
someone did a color pass on one of the scenes and it looks like a different movie imo. better.
but i guess the color matches the amount of heart and passion they put into it.
ikr right, it's so... gray... the original movies had so much color and life, like the original i just can't wait to be king, it really makes you feel like your inside the mind of an excited, slightly cocky child, the new one just looks like a Nat Geo documentary with music, heck even those are better than that mess, cause at least the docs let you see what real nature is like not a lifeless imitation
@abc.animal514 I've never been to Africa so I cant really say anything but also, there's nothing wrong with adding in colour just for aesthetic purposes like the strong orange sky or maybe the jungle area Simba hangs out in could've been more saturated to signify him living in a sort of paradise. Mood is a part of cinema and that can be done through lighting and colours that the Lion King Live Action left out to try and look "realistic". It's the entire point of the video, all expression is lost.
The "live action" nature doesn't help the bad dialogue. Watching realistic animals talk is a huge dissonance. The whole purpose of animated cartoons is showing something reality doesn't do. Really, these "live action" movies are a step backwards. Just because the technology exists doesn't mean our minds will be okay with seeing a non-human mouth articulate speech the same as people do. The over-realistic design is conflicting.
Exactly what I thought. There's a reason these films weren't live-action in the first place.
Animation turned to live-action rarely works, unless the animation tried to be realistic (which fortunately rarely is the case). Live-action Lion King is as weird as live-action South Park would be...
THANK YOU! This was my biggest issue with the film BY FAR. The fact that none of these characters can‘t properly emote without looking horrifically unrealistic in a realistic setting is really distracting. I can’t feel the emotions because no one looks like they’re feeling anything. They just look like lions or hyenas or monkeys or whatever. It doesn’t work at all. A prime example of this is Mufasa’s death in the remake. In the original, you can see the sick twisted glee in Scar’s sneering face, as well as Mufasa’s shock and even horror at the betrayal. Scar literally clamps his claws down on Mufasa’s paws and then throws them off the rock after taunting him to his face. In the remake, Scar just shouts “long live the King!” and smacks Mufasa in the face. It doesn’t even sound like Scar is enjoying himself, which he SHOULD be. Then they follow it up with the shitty zoom out/in (I can’t quite remember) of Simba yelling no, which looked absolutely horrendous. They took quite possibly the single most significant and memorable scene in the film and made it a pathetic shadow of its former self. That pretty much sums this film up for me. It’s an hour longer than the original, mostly because of scenes that go on for too long and pad the runtime (I’m looking at you, dung beetle rolling ball of shit scene). I have several more things I’d LOVE to complain about, but I’ve spent enough time complaining already.
And not only are we seeing a non human articulate like one, were hearing VERY famous people we know as these non humans and it makes the disconnect even more so
@@a_fine_edition2746 When I saw that moment, I freaking laughed, seeing that's the way they decided to do it. When you're laughing at a moment that's supposed to make you feel dread that somebody just died, you have a problem
@@a_fine_edition2746 People think the remake butchered Be Prepared (and they did, no argument there), but I thought the entire stampede scene and the death of Mufasa was butchered even more. Even Scar's "Long live the king" line was really off.
they should’ve done what the creators of Rango did, which they had the voice actors physically act out the scenes with dyi sets to get the emotion right
I think dreamworks uses that technique as well.
Or use Stuart Little as some form of reference too
That makes them so much more immersive! I just watched Fantastic Mr. Fox and they did that same thing. Not only does it drastically shift the tone of the movie, but also you can just feel the actors having fun and enjoying themselves.
Rango is such an criminally underrated masterpiece.
That's a good idea but it wouldn't have saved it.
At this point their just catering to nostalgia. Can see the lack of care in them no matter how skilled it was to make.
That's because it's the simple VFX workers that put the efforts, while the higher-ups don't have to put much effort into it. But it's the higher-ups that get the credit and big paychecks.
boiwhybother Disney is a shell of its former self. Walt is probably turning in his grave as he sees what a soulless corporation Disney has become.
Can sum it up quite simply- this film made commercial sense, not artistic sense. Does anyone really believe they thought Beyonce was the best choice to act in anything?
boiwhybother there is also thousands of people with jobs that Disney is responsible for. If they only made new original movies that hit their desk, many of those people would be out of a job
@@kregadeth5562 It's very short term thinking, though. Every time you cash in like this, you're harming your brand in the long term. There was a time in the 90s when people just had to hear "Disney film" and they were so excited, without any plot details, same as Pixar in the early 2000s. Now people hear those brands and tend to think "hey, that might be good", but before it was "this is going to be great". You can't put a price on that.
I don’t believe the whole “It’s for a new generation” excuse. My little brother was 8 years old when we took him to see this and let me tell ya, he was bored out of his mind. He kept fussing that he wanted to go to home and eventually fell asleep on my mom’s lap. The next day I put the original Lion King on Disney+ for him and he sat through the whole thing just fine. This movie isn’t for kids, it’s for us. It’s for people that grew up with the original.
Yeah. For me it was boring as well but I wanted to continue watching it to see what they did to Be Prepared. I regret it.
Wrong. It's not for "us". It's for idiots,, easily manipulated by nostalgia and blind to any sense of standards.
Enniannu yea you right
@Cyberdemon Mike "ok reviews"
Great endorsement, genius...
It made a ton of money because there are a ton of idiots easily manipulated by nostalgia and blind to any sense of standards.
@Cyberdemon Mike the audience of "I want to watch lion king for nostalgia, but animation is only for kids!" is way larger than you would expect
"They're not for us, they're for kids." Yeah right! Like Disney isn't cashing in on nostalgia.
plus kids don't buy the tickets, we do.
True. By their logic kids shouldn't have been watching any Disney movie made over 30 years ago.
Mulan is a disaster to say the least
How are you everywhere?!
You again
Mulan 2020 is a disaster yes
Nuff said
Mulan was AWESOME!!!!
The Lion King remake was probably the most relatable film I've ever watched, in that, it's as dead inside as I am
+
That's dark
True tho
LOL...i was like man you need to....oh okay i see what you did there.
They had us in the first half, not gonna lie
The jungle book 2016 i think is the only disney remake to make all the characters feel alive and also capture the spirit of the original whilst adding new things/putting their own spin on it.
2nd best. Beauty and the Beast was really the best. Even the the creator of this video admits “to the exception of Beauty and the Beast” referring to how bad the live action remakes are.
Unpopular opinion but I thought Aladin was decsent
@@maforo85 But didn't the music in beauty and the beast suck?
@@maforo85 Beauty and the Beast was a pale imitation with nothing new to say. I saw it in theaters, and I walked out of that theater feeling... just kinda hollow.
@@maforo85 ayo it had some Disney woke moments.....and i mean a lot
I think it's a bad cop out to say their script doesn't allow them to show their talent. No matter how talented they're, they're bad voice actors period.
A lot of people seem to think acting and voice acting are the same thing, when voice acting is an art in and of itself. That's the issue with tying a ton of celebrity actors to an animated/computer-animated film. If the animation and/or writing isn't stellar, you're toast.
They black, so no criticism plskthx.
you're kind of true but a lot of this actually falls on directors. while you record voice lines, there's someone that listens to the actors and they can repeat their lines as needed and get feedback. a good director would give lots of feedback and keep going until you get a really good take
That's part of why in a lot of movies with small budgets that manage to buy a large actor, you'll notice a rather steep degrade in their acting. they either aren't paid a lot, or the director gives them very few chances to redo lines
This isn't an excuse for bad voice acting but it can make it a bit hard to pinpoint if its the actors fault or the directors fault, because Disney in the PAST has been pretty damn good when it comes to actors, even famous people, but it is possible that their new standards means getting names and not talent.
I think honestly its probably a mix of both, but having good direction can make "meh" voice acting a little more tolerable
Yeah the fact that Seth Rogan and Billy Eichner were able to do it in this film proves that wrong! Chiwetel Ejiofor, even with a lot (and I mean A LOT!) stacked against him in terms of the script and execution of Scar was able to at least somewhat give life to the character.
People just don't wanna admit that Beyonce is a terrible voice actor, and James Earl Jones really phoned it in the second time around. They'd have been better off dubbing the Mufasa audio from the original over the new footage!
@@Anders4Anders what does this comment mean?
The stigma that it's "For kids" equals bad or stupid is so.....short sighted. I think much like Mary Poppins, there's a lot of value and magic in making creative good content for children that adults can heavily appreciate. Avatar being a good animated example.
Exactly, I seriously wish they'd have stayed with their 2D art, or at the very least, went full ham with the CG and created fantastical settings, environments and sights that you couldn't do in reality. Using CG to recreate reality is just really short sighted. To be honest though, I'm a HUGE fan of the movie Fern Gully, and I would honestly love to see what that would look like if it was fully redone in CG. It'd be like a Disney version of Avatar. :D
Just because adults can appreciate it doesn’t mean adults who are nostalgic should have a say in how the movie is made...The art of the movies is squandered with an attempt to “right” these “wrongs” that millennials complained about the original movie. But what we loved about the movie as kids WASN’T the plot, the acting, the dressings...it was the storytelling. The art of subtlety at times. The music. *How it all ties together into a cohesive unit...a true masterpiece*
When the story is already there, it’s hard to retell it and still make it art. Hard but not impossible. What makes it impossible is millennial’s high expectations.
Ironically some of these movies end up being more childish than the animated originals, for example how they made the pink elephants scene in the dumbo remake more light hearted and family friendly or how they wrote an entire song about jasmine being "strong and independent" so that even the dumbest kids could understand it.
@@Andrej229 Its true. Even in the Lion king remake, during Hakuna Matata. . . in the original, Pumba said "And I got downhearted, every time that I-" and then Timon stopped him saying "Pumba, not in front of the kids" and it was a classy moment in my opinion, cuz its a disney movie and they don't need full on toilet humor.
Whereas the new one they just let him sing the whole song "and I got downhearted everytime that I farted" and it just made they whole thing that much more childish.
The stigma that it's for kids is stupid because usb parents have to watch it, and I'm not watching this shit movie.
That Hercules "Go the distance" piano arrangement at the end really do be hitting me with that nostalgia
That's where I heard it! I still remember it! It still lingers in my heart
The voice acting in the remake reminds me of a bunch of middle school kids who took drama just to fill out their schedule and are asked to put on a play they hardly practiced due to their lack of any care
At this rate I won’t be surprised if they do a live action remake of a live action remake
This bent my mind, I stutter like a Communist now
The real irony would be if they make an animated remake of a live action remake
Our great leader!
Or the re-release the animated films calling them an animated adaptation of the live action films
No there gonna do a sequel to a live action remake...oh wait that already happened
In The Chronicles of Narnia they did a great job with Aslan, portraying emotion through his face while he was talking, and that was cgi in 2005. With current technology they could have done even better nowadays, so they really messed up with The Lion King
The problem with hyper realism is they can't. Animals literally don't have the facial muscles to make the expressions. And as shown in the video, they modeled the characters on physical, real-world examples.
@@theuniversalscholar2362 But they do have body language.
@@theuniversalscholar2362 Maybe the actors sound stiff because the character designs are lifeless????
The funny thing is that they could have actually done them good. Look up the rejected concept art for this movie. They look so cool and expressive. But Jon Favreau rejected them because he wanted a 'realistic' movie.
"Can you feel the love toNIGHT?"
*is the middle of day*
Same goes for Arabian Nights
Yeah, that's such a lack of care! How hard would be to set the scene during the dusk, or night?
@@holiggan2008 It would look amazing if they threw in some fireflighs, too. But nope. Also, beyonce singing over glover pissed me off.
@Michael Laiosa Jr still daytime and plenty of it. In the animation it was night.
@Michael Laiosa Jr no, can you fell the love TONIGHT..😒
Robin Willams himself only signed on to Aladdin because he asked them to not smack his name all over it and that they wouldn’t make HIM “Marketable”. Genie or otherwise. They said yes but broke that promise and Willams wanted to backed out. Love your videos man can’t wait to see your movie!
well he couldn't 'back out' at that point. but he did pubically call them out and refused to come back for the sequel. they eventually worked through it before 3 came out and he returned
Sir Will exactly thanks for the clarification
Not Caramel Donuts To this day Disney and other companies still use celebrity voice acting to cash in on their film. Pitiful.
They got Robin Williams cause as a pitch to him to do the movie they made pencil sketch animation of his character doing some of his stand up routines and he liked it and agreed to do the movie only if the genie wasn't in the marketing as far as merchandise and Disney Didn't live up to there agreement and we didn't get him again until the second straight to video sequel
I've been more or less "half-and-half" about this issue. On one hand, if Robin didn't want Disney to use HIM as marketing, he had every right to make that request, and it should have been respected. On the other, The Genie is Disney's character, and they had every right to use the CHARACTER in as much marketing as they wanted.
4:11
Timon - "What do ya want me to do, dress in drag and do the hula?"
1994 - "Luau!"
2019 - Apparently not.
That scene was one of my favorites as a kid. It was colorful and funny. A nice break right before the climax.
I wish the creators didn't have Twitter watching their every move so they can say something potentially inflammatory in the name of fun.
@Kai Maxwell "ItS mEaNt TO BE rEaLiStIc StUpId!!!!!!111!!!😠😡😡😠😡😠😡😡😠😡😡😠"
That "it's just for kids" argument needs to drop, especially in the case of Disney. Disney itself was _never_ meant to be _just_ for kids. As Walt himself put it, "You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up anyway."
People need to understand that a movie exempt from explicit content doesn't make it isolated from an adult, or even teen, audience. You also reach a wider (and more profitable) audience by expanding your demographic, and this is something Disney is fully aware of, hence the endless nostalgia-fueled cash-grabs. There's definitely value in a well-developed story that a child as well as an adult can fully enjoy and critic.
Even if a film was only meant for kids, one doesn't have to make it a trash fire because "kids are too dumb to understand." The 90's Disney renaissance is proof of that. People need to _stop_ undermining the intelligence of kids. Kids learn very quickly and very easily, and are a lot more aware than people like to believe. If all you have to offer them is colorful garbage, then how do you expect that perception of "kid = dumb" to change.
edit: just added a space
Well said, I could not agree with you more. Kids actually posses the best powers of observation in ANY human timeline. Their "job" is to make sense of the world around them and adapt to it; so insulting their intelligence is infuriating.
I know right, this argument can get me really heated every time it’s mentioned.
That phrase for Disney would drop after my idea for Olympus Centuria gets released. With a mecha anime inspired animated series having mature themes, a dark, epic tone, and some comedic moments. Many would consider my idea for Centuria to prove Disney can’t use the “animation is for kids” excuse since adults can enjoy animated shows for kids too.
@@masterseal0418 yas queen
Yeah, an honestly, the only reason kids go to the theater and get exited about watching this movie is because their parents get them excited about it and take them. If it was just for kids, they wouldn't even bother remaking all these movies and playing the nostalgia card.
"[They] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should"
Jeff Goldblum
-Jurassic Park
"To give your quote a nice and shiny format, just [alt=255] eight times, copy-paste in an emdash, then type the attribution, surrounding the work with underscores."
- I'm Very Angry It's Not Butter, _RUclips Comments Section_
"What's Wrong with Disney's Remakes"
Literally everything
Except the CGI. But that too disappeared since 2020.
It troubles me that 2005's Narnia's Aslan showed way more emotion and "realism" that these talking lions ever did.
Yes I totally agree
What about the original model Thomas series? 11 seasons of full on model trains with clay faces that needed to be swapped inbetween shits for emotion and still give more emotion than the 9 digits big budget 2019 disney lion king
They took away Scar's villain song
I'll never forgive them for that
My mom and I love The Lion King. When we got to that scene, I had to convince her not to leave, even though I wanted to, as well.
Yessss! This! I kept watching the scene, waiting for the song, and all of a sudden it was over. They completely lost me after that.
It was like beat poetry or something. I got so excited and then the vibe was murdered.
I guess they weren't prepared
Apparently the song would not be politically correct these days, what with the marching hyenas. I gave up on the live Disney remakes
Not only is Atlantis an amazing movie but also IT DIDN'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO GET A LIVE ACTION FILM HALLELUJAH
I’m sure a petition would work!!
The stupid comments people made that went viral changed scenes in live actions! I’m sure they’ll hear this when they see more people support it.
@@krissnamartin I think the point is they're HAPPY that Atlantis doesn't have a live action remake lol. Given the track record, I'm sure most fans are
Neither The road to El Dorado! Yaaaaay!
Like literally Atlantis, Treasure Planet and Road to El Dorado are the movies that deserve to have a live action remake, but they’ll probably not do it.
@@StormTalara Road to El Dorado would be awesome if they would use Spanish and South American actors
For me the scene that killed me and was the last nail in the coffin was the scene were Simba sees Mufasa falls for his death. In the original the face is clear that he is losing someone, that he is in pain. In the remake there is just a face of a lion cub that sure is in pain, but not as in a distressful pain of losing someone, is just the face of an animal in pain, there is no human emotion, no facial expression you can relate to, just an animal in generic pain (wich can be sad, but not for this type of story were the animals are supposed to feel human).
Now, how can you fix this:
1) Make a more cartoonish CGI movie (I mean, your movie is completely in CGI, why make it realistic)
2) Make a documentary about lions in CGI (because if you wanted to show off CGI and how realistic these animals look then why don't make a documentary about them to make them feel real)
2d animated Lion King: *looks like he's watching the most important person to you die a horrible death*
CGI Lion King: Ahh ouchie me stub my toe
Honestly Aslan from the Narnia movies is a hundred times better. And its like a decade old. He looks like a real lion, but there is enough human expression in his face that actually conveys how he is feeling and thinking.
People who use "it's for kids" excuse on Disney live action reboot is very weak, plus if I was a kid I definitely wouldn't be entertained by how real everyhing looks. The realistic colors all look dull
Right?
Kids like bright and vibrant colors- not all this dull, drab, "realistic" brownish-greyish lighting!
The kids I know actually fell asleep with this "live action" remake.
Honestly the only reason I still kept watching the movie in the theater and didn't walk out is because I was entertained by the kids doing stupid things
Nalas original "I will." Was just so... I don't know how to put it really. It was so simple and reassuring and how a longtime friend actually talks.
The new one is so forced, obviously trying to convey and get an emotion from the audience
Exactly! Original Nala sounded like, "I will [because I love this land deeply. It is my home.]"
Fake Nala sounded like, "I will [but I am not confident in my ability, so I'm trying desperately to overcompensate by using my deeper octave 'please, believe me' voice.]"
I wonder why they didn't hire a real voice actor instead of Beyonce.
@@danieljakistam9409 dollars 🤑💵💰.
They think a name like Beyonce sells seats. Despite the fact she’s a terrible actor.
@@StormTalara 🌟*Looks before skills*🌟
YES! Take it from the perspective of an animation student: This movie actually breaks the principles of animation. There are 12 principles of animation (which were in fact established by Disney). One of these principles is EXAGGERATION. In order to convey an emotion or an action, the facial expressions, poses etc. are exaggerated as much as is reasonable to really hit the point home:
"Exaggeration is an effect especially useful for animation, as animated motions that strive for a perfect imitation of reality can look static and dull. The level of exaggeration depends on whether one seeks realism or a particular style, like a caricature or the style of a specific artist. The classical definition of exaggeration, employed by Disney, was to remain true to reality, just presenting it in a wilder, more extreme form."
Photo-realistic does not equal better. They stripped this story of all its creativity, heart and life (ironically enough).
+
No squash and stretch either......can you provide a link to any of your school work. I’m almost fifty and would have died to go to animation school but parents said no
Such irony considerinf exaggeration/ squash and stretch was Disney's bread and butter in animation jsjff
That point about exaggeration is most of what's wrong with Code Lyoko Evolution now that I think about it. Though that series has nothing to do with Disney.
@@abigaildeeks8328 you can actually find many videos regarding animation and it’s principles right here on RUclips! Aaron Blaise’s channel is a good place to start; he was at Disney while they were still doing 2D stuff and has an online course on his website as well. It’s never too late to learn!
I'm just depressed over how much the use of traditional animation has declined over the last 20 years
Me too! Whenever I watch an original hand-drawn 2D animated film, I'm always impressed with how much detail there is in them. I hoped that The Princess and The Frog would make it popular again. 🙁
@@Missjunebugfreak They tried but it among their newer films, it didn't catch on as much. Everyone remembers Tangled and Frozen, but The Princess and the Frog barely get a mention.
@@fernandobanda5734 Tangled is really good though, so of course people will remember it and love it. Frozen... Hm, I can't say what people liked so much about it but it isn't terrible. Just very confused and so under-developed. I mean, when even I can come up with a better idea based on it, it's bad. The songs are catchy though, I admit.
I think the Princess and the Frog barely gets a mention because first of all, there's tons of racists out there angry that the main character has black skin, even if she turns into a simple frog (I am sad that such a good design was swapped for a simple green frog), and then there's overly sensitive people thinking it's either too intense, not appropiate for religious people, or anything else. People love to find excuses to dislike things.
@@iclynnx I'm on the same boat. The Princess and the Frog and Tangled are pretty great, while Frozen only has a good soundtrack. I was talking in general about how they were received, not whether they deserved it.
@@fernandobanda5734 I was guessing that. I'm just a deep thinker. I like to analyse things and write it down. In the previous reply I was analysing the movies, why they were liked or not liked. Wether someone bothers to reply or not, I just like to write things I think. It's calming. Helps me from losing my mind in the real world. It feels like I just stepped into a bubble. I'm safe.
“The beast is fine because he’s not supposed to look human or real” nope the beast does not look fine. the beast looks, to quote Ryan George, “slightly better than a snapchat filter”
Actually the beast does look fine, he looks great, he was adapted well into live action and if you can't see that then you're just a blind hater with no taste, learn to appreciate some things fool
The beast isn't great, but it's fine. It's ok. The thing is, I have high expectations for people spending millions of dollars to adapt my favorite Disney film, and "fine" doesn't cut it. Besides, I think in this case he was referring more to the jarring dissonance between real, recognizable animals and fictional creatures. Even if the beast looks bad, I can still believe he can talk.
He just looked like a hairy person with horns in the live action one. Not bad enough to be funny, but not good enough to actually leave an impression, or stand out.
@@watchgamezgo7146 “If you don’t agree with me, you don’t have taste and are a hater” nice logic
Thanks for quoting Ryan George 👌
"It's for kids"
Because heaven knows we can't show our children the same movies we enjoyed as kids, because they all hate hilarious cartoons now.
Name a single person with a kid who hasn't seen/heard a favorite movie a million times? My cousin was often mouthing the lines and songs while rolling her eyes when her daughter was watching a show/movie for the 5th time in a day. Adults often have to watch children's films/cartoons.
@@Cerinaya Hell, when I was 4~6 I remember I watched Nightmare Before Christmas and Transformers The Movie both about 2 to 3 times a day! We had multiple tapes! LOL
I came here to see if anyone made this comment before I made it.
This isn't for kids. I'm with the youtuber that it's a nostalgic hit that Disney knew a bunch of 80s and 90s kids will flock to because we love(d) these movies.
The original lion king is my absolute favorite movie of all time. I'm 35, haven't seen it in a few years but wouldn't mind seeing it again. I can still repeat lines (i repeated the first clip eyes closed) but I have no interest in seeing this one.
It's just wrong some how.
And if I want a future kid of mine to see the Lion King it will 100 percent be the original ... If I want live action I'll try to see the Broadway musical. Not this.
((Side note. Some how Beauty and the Beast was ok.
I went with my friend and her sister to the movies. And sang to the Be our Guest song. It was funny because all of us 20-30 year olds were singing along.
But it was ok for that movie.))
I agree with you, but honestly, you don't even have to think up a counter argument for this. As soon as someone responds to 'uh, it's a bit terrible' with 'it's for kids!', then you know they've lost.
@@lizzalkula376 " Some how Beauty and the Beast was ok. "
No...
I noticed a VERY small detail in the "Friend Like Me" scene in the animated Aladdin. Genie writes down on a note pad, which is a sequence like, a second long. I noticed that the scribble reminded me of Arabic, so i paused it, and loaded up Google Translate.
Lo, and behold, the "scribble" was actually Persian for "Turkey Pilaf". And what does Genie serve Aladdin? A damned turkey!
THIS is level of "Blink and you miss it" attention to detail that makes Disney special. They could have easily just put literal scribble there, but NO! They decided to actually go that extra step for the extra observant.
That's really cool actually. Kudos to you for noticing that.
What's Pilaf?
That is incredibly cool.
@@BambinaSaldana rice (or, similarly cooked ground wheat)
I'm assuming it's from either Arabic or Persian, because in Turkish we call it "pilav"
@@ScientistCat Ah, okay.
The scene that really got me was Mufasa's death.
I _heard_ the emotion, audibly I could tell Simba was sad. But visually? Not at all. He still had the same face he had _the whole movie._ It really took me out of the moment seeing Simba with just a basic lion face while talking as if he's near tears.
Edit: This has nothing to do with what was mentioned in the video, but I just want to add on that I wasn't a huge fan of CYFTLT because it just felt like Beyonce singing instead of a duet. It's supposed to be a duet, and instead Beyonce is powering over Glover and that kinda ruins it imo. The song is essentially Beyonce singing while Donald Glover is just kinda there.
Same. I cry every time I watch the scene Mufasa died (30yo and still do), and I went watching the live action bringing way too much Kleenex. Mufasa died and I felt absolutely nothing.
Aslan looked better than cgi simba ever did.
@@NeroLeMorte every lion in this movie wishes they had the cgi of Aslan
6:41 What's really unfortunate about that scene of Pumbaa is that I have no idea what he's saying or thinking. This "animated" movie is so un-animated that, without the audio, it's impossible to read the characters. Which is basically antithetical to how a good animated film - or film in general - should be made. Same with the scene of Simba and Nala at 2:31, if you mute the audio. Their faces are so flat that no emotion comes through at all. They could just as easily be talking about the weather.
.
As an aside, one sadly ironic thing: If the recent versions of The Lion King and Call Of The Wild had swapped CGI styles, both would have been better movies for it.
It seems like the more realistic you go in animation there's less room for expression and details.
I've never seen the recent Call of the Wild movie, but looking at the trailers, my problem was that the dog was emoting too much. And yet, I agree, that kind of CGI would have fit a lot better in the Lion King remake.
@@michaelstrong5383 Yeah, the dogs in COTW are photorealistic, but their faces all have the musculature of a human head. Which is uncanny-valley as fuck. Especially when these dog-human hybrids are placed inside a real world filmed on actual sets alongside actual human beings. In COTW, making the dogs *completely* realistic, even at the expense of emoting, would have been the right call. After all, most humans can still read dogs' natural body language, so you can still make them act well enough.
.
OTOH, since The Lion King was 100% CGI, it would be possible to take that slightly cartoony human-esque face aesthetic, and apply it to the entire world. Which would make it much less jarring, if the overall look and feel was unified. And then you'd have characters who actually could carry the emotional heavy lifting, rather than staring gormlessly off into space because their faces didn't evolve to convey nuance.
It's like the "animators" studied taxidermed corpses instead of living, breathing creatures like the original animators did ...
I think the great example is detective Pikachu They made pokemon look real to a point that they can fit into the live-action world but didn't make them too real to make them look like nightmare monsters
Yeah detective Pikachu made me want to live in that world!! 💯
bro that movie made me wanna go in there and give him a good ol' cuddle. so floofy, by God
People see animation as an inferior “for kids” medium. When it just that- just another medium for storytelling.
Even worse, people see animation as a *genre* not a medium. Hell, we could have animated horror movies but no, just talking animals for kids.
And it disregards things done in animation that simply couldn't work with live-action or hyperrealistic CGI, like the pink elephants in Dumbo.
You know what would be great? Some gritty animated films with the kind of realism they're doing. They could make some really cool creatures and beasts that look real and make you feel like you're in the movie. It could be the best animated creature/beast/monster yet.
Avatar the Last Airbender isn't just a "kids show" or an "animated show," it's a hecking masterpiece just like the Disney Renaissance films. The story and action sequences fit best in animated form, and trying to "correct" that by making a live action form because you think that live action is inherently superior is honestly kind of disrespectful imo
*looks at Attack on Titan, Goblin Slayer, Hellsing, and Netflix’s Castlevania*
The Robin Williams voice acting clip also highlights something else; his performance is totally suited for animation. Like it literally couldn't work in live action. Even if you've never seen Aladdin, even if you close your eyes, you're hearing an animated character voice.
Its like when they had the sonic trailers. They went too real on Sonic and he didn't look right. After they tweaked him and brought back some of his cartoony features he looked like Sonic.
Only after the studio got bullied by online sonic fans.
What inspired you to make one live action remake after another instead of original movies?
Disney: *M O N E Y*
It's also important to remember that being a talented actor does not necessarily translate into every kind of acting. Stage vs. t.v. vs. film vs. musical are all DRASTICALLY different styles of acting and require entirely different techniques. This is especially true of voice-acting.
You see it happen pretty regularly where a much loved actor is cast to voice a character for an animated movie or videogame but they wind up being replaced because it just doesn't turn out. For example, Peter Dinklage was the voice of the protagonist's "ghost" in the game Destiny but they wound up replacing him after everything was recorded because it just wasn't up to snuff. I have yet to see anything with Peter Dinklage in it in person that he doesn't absolutely nail. But that voice acting was really... not great. And he was replaced by Nolan North, who is extremely talented and is a pretty huge name in the V.O. community but most people haven't heard of him because he almost exclusively does voice work.
By casting nothing but celebrities who have no previous voice-over experience, they were dooming the movie from the start.
Shout out to Avatar Tim Curry, master of all four acting elements.
Voice acting in general is very underapreciated.
True but robin williams could do it all.
I have this argument with my friends all the time.
It’s sad that a giant realistic moth has more emotion than the live action lion king.
Which moth?
@@redscyther7725 mothra
Thanks
"Realer isn't better when real already exists" is a sentence I have been trying to find the words for years since I saw the Jungle book reboot years ago.
My daughter could barely hold her attention for more than 10 minutes in the live action, yet she never took her eyes off the animated one. Goes to show how the magic of animation, music, story and everything in between captivated her.
Speaking of Nala with Simba. There's this scene where they tussle and she ends up on her back. The look she gives him is all for the adults in the room, but can you imagine that...thing, trying to emote that??? the whole idea was preposterous. :) you gonna make a 'real life' version of the Lion King...LET THE ANIMALS EMOTE!!!!!! And never dare tell me you can't, Disney. You got the money to have the deity of your choice do the ticket-sales for you.
"They're not for you, they're for a new generation"
... I wasn't even alive when most of the Disney films were made, I still watched and loved them as a kid.
I mean who told kids the the 1960s as they bundled into the cinema to watch Snow White that they'd be better off with a live action remake.
Who told kids in the 1990s that 101 Dalmatians wasn't worth seeing if it didn't have non-talking dogs and Glenn Close.
Disney movies are for everyone, no matter the generation, that was literally the whole basis of Disney when it was established. So to hear the company now talking about how their films "aren't for everyone", all they're doing is shooting themselves in the foot.
The Lion King remake was awful and pointless. Sure, Disney showed off their animation technology, but this film was gawd awful.
I honestly couldn't believe there were some people defending that piece of garbage. The Lion King was the last straw for me in terms of live-action remakes.
At least the acting was kinda of good
The animation was visually impressive, but that's about it. There weren't really that much changes, which defeats the purpose of a remake itself. If there's not much you can change or improve, then what's even the point of remaking it in the first place?
@@michaelstrong5383 Exactly. The whole animation thing was the selling point and it worked.
@@nekonomicon2983 I look at the Lion King remake as what Avatar was 10 years ago: A film that depends on the technology but offers nothing new plot-wise. Only difference is that while Avatar gets sequels after sequels, I can't imagine anyone remembering this movie 5 to 10 years from now.
So here's something that I randomly thought of after watching this:
What if this movie was a silent film? Considering that they went so far out of their way in terms of visuals and how realistic they wanted it, what if they just threw voice acting into the trash bin and went 100% visual storytelling? Any music could be turned into background music to help set the tone of the scene it came from.
So just meows and roars
That could have worked if they’d bothered to animate emotions. But as it stand we would have ended up with an incredibly boring and lifeless nature documentary.
I was thinking the same thing! If this movie was supposed to be so incredibly realistic, why not go all the way and take out the talking animals aspect? It might not make the movie actually good, even if they’d made the animation and expressions livelier, but it would at least show some kind of effort at doing something creative and interesting.
@@Magniflorious nature documentaries are more fun to watch than this. i watch nature documentaries because i enjoy observing real animals' behaviors. If they removed the voice acting, this would just be a simulation of what humans _think_ animals act like (as in it's not even real animals) so they wouldn't even attract the people who watch nature documentaries with that...I'm not sure this is intended for what audience actually. Maybe the cgi geeks.
so, it'd be more akin to spirit: stallion of the cimarron (in the way of storytelling-ish) but cgi lion king (and disney can't touch spirit, it's dreamworks)
Doofus: "It's for kids."
Me: "So you were creative and made something entirely new?"
Doofus: "Nah, we're banking on nostalgia."
Me: "Of kids?"
Doofus: "Yes."
Voice acting is a special kind of art, not every actor can be a voice actor
Personally, my biggest problem with these remakes is the fact that they're not doing their own thing with them. I mean, look at the animated versions; most of them are already based on preexisting stories, some of which had already been adapted before then.
But the animated versions took those classic stories and did their own thing with them. These remakes just try to replicate the animated versions instead of taking the classic stories, building upon them, and doing their own spin on them.
Well, it looks like Mulan will be doing that, thankfully, though I don't exactly like that Disney's creative team is sycophantically listening to the dictates of an OCD third-party company they're collaborating with. [Tencent]
@@DTX0217 Well, hopefully the movie turns out good.
Ethan Smith yeah it looks kind of OK
@@ethansmith6149 HAHAAHAHAHAHA
*N O* it is NOT
"Hakuna Matata" is the best example of "not recreating the spirit". I watched the remake's version first and then revisited the original. The remake was okay.. but felt pretty souless, like it was just going through the motions. But the original is so joyous, fun, and carefree--it truly represents the meaning of the song. The animals' movements, expressions, and fantastical visuals had SO MUCH PERSONALITY in the original. The remake's attempt at combining photorealism and fantasy is like oil and water.
It’s harder to express such emotion easily captured in 2d with hyper realistic 3D models. It’s common sense
I disagree with this I believe with the right models you can, but when you the make the 3D models look like real life animals which can’t express as much emotion
Cinderella do such a great job
Mowgli legend of the jungle did a great job with it
Thezapgamer ...Yeah that’s exactly what Blair said.
Yup
Can we talk about that one scene where we just watched the dung ball travel across the savanna for like an entire minute?
OH MY GOD I FORGOT ABOUT THAT. I was so fucking angry that they reduced Be Prepared to basically reprise length and then ANIMATED THE DUNG BEETLE.
Omg, yes! That was so stupid and a waste of screentime!
@@DanielleSantos711 Well, I did like the dung ball travel scene. But I too didn't like what had become of Be Prepared.
Highlight of the film.
I never watched the movie, but it sounds to me like watching a rolling dung ball is a pretty good metaphor for the entire movie. "The Lion King live action remake is a rolling dung ball." Heh.
I really don't get why people say "It's to introduce a new generation to these worlds." Like, you can still show kids the original Lion King, it's still a good movie, and because it's 2D animation it doesn't really get dated. Sue maybe it's not the modern style, but you know who doesn't care what's in "fashion"... KIDS!
It’s simple, Beyonce can’t voice act for her life.
SNAKE3LR low talent ass shaker.
marianne mccrank true, stick to it.
She would be better in something where every line is sung, not spoken.
Not quite; it's just that this role doesn't make sense for her. She did just fine in Dreamgirls, for example, because it suited her and the most important part of that character was that she was a singer and performer.
Casting her as a side character is dumb. Casting her as a lion is dumb. Beyonce's strength is her stage presence, and that's erased here. This is the casting director's fault.
@marianne mccrank So they should have found someone who could voice act well. Choosing her just because she's a celebrity in one occupation. Was a very poor decision on the people in charged of deciding roles.
It’s not live action, it’s reanimated
This comment deserves more attention. They literally kiilled The Lion King and brought it back from the dead and it's ugly and disgusting and it needs to have its head cut off and set on fire.
I am totally gonna call this stuff "reanimated" from now on. Whoever you are, that was brilliant.
It’s frigging photorealistic animation.
You are right, it's CGI not Live Action.
@@lugbzurg8987 Funny enough, that's a name of a terrible Cartoon Network movie that was a pilot for a terrible live-action sitcom that aired on Cartoon Network called Out of Jimmy's Head.
I commend your use of Hercules “Go the Distance” in your song choice..easily one of the most underrated songs and movies Disney has made
If they want money for these movies, just re release them in theaters. That would be better of nostalgia
Example: last may I saw a re release of Alien in theaters and it actually made me feel more like I was in 1979
I have this feeling they then be criticized for not making original content and just releasing films since no one can happy with anything I guess
@@blubettle1191 Profiting off of nostalgia to sell tickets to bland, bloated, boring live-action remakes is the same thing. It's not original storytelling, just a repackaging of a beloved classic to sell to the masses.
The thing is that many adults unfortanately see animation as "for kids", and most people wouldn't pay to rewatch a movie in the theater.
They should put all their time and money into new original content that's actually good instead of relying on nostalgia.
Then again, the lion king remake is the highest grossing animated film of all time now (even though they advertised it as a live action remake). Tons of people didn't care about the quality of the writing or even the character designs, they just wanted to see lion king but with a hyper realistic artstyle because realism is better than surrealism for them. It's why every DC movie was trying to copy The Dark Knight, because people liked how realistic it was.
When talking, Beyonce always sounds like she is just getting over a cold, but still has a tiny drop of snot in her nose...
Her voice always sounds over-processed to me...I can't explain it, but that's what I hear lol.w
Ok, why isn't the Snot Queen a movie?
Doesn't she have a hard time talking originally?
I can not tell you how much I bursted out laughing when Beyoncé started singing in CYFTLT. I was doubled over in my chair for a good portion of the song. It was just so... wrong, in a way that I couldn’t help but laugh.
I think we need to go back further.
When Disney made "Straight to VHS" sequels to their Renaissance movies, they did so for a very specific reason. Those movies were animated by new staff as training. It's one of the reasons they were lower budget and animated so differently from the originals.
Now, instead of training new animators on techniques, they test new technology for animation. And in order to justify the cost of investing in new technology, they use a property that they don't need to do anything else with, to prove its it's worth.
Another example might be The Mandalorian, where they are using the new background screen tech. Do they test it with a small thing first? No, they dive right in to one of their biggest franchises on their first live action show on their new streaming platform.
Disney seems to be trying to make the biggest splash possible in order to justify continuously creating new technology.
Oh my god that's so nice I never knew they where new animator or anything. I thought some where good but most where ok at best. Its nice to know people got a chance to improve and definitely gain confidence when those movies where realised
marianne mccrank The Bambi was beautifully done and so was Lion King 2
@PMDP S2806 But it's a sequel.
@PMDP S2806 It does take place after the first film. The first film ends with the gunshot, because I never cared to watch past that.
Counterpoint: The new tech they created for Tangled and Frozen and 2 and Big Hero 6. Which were all big, new, tentpole Disney franchises.
You're effectively complaining that Disney is willing to invest in their movies and try to be technologically innovative. Which they've been doing since they started making animated movies.
Also, the Jungle Book had the same director as Lion King, and used much of the same tech, and that was pretty good. If anything, it was a dry run for Lion King, with a lower budget and a human lead to ground the movie. I don't know what went wrong with Lion King.
And who's the producer on the Mandalorian? Favreau again. Almost like the man has spent a decade and a half of his life working on successful VFX movies, and knows how to work with tech.
Ugh... I would never show my kids this before showing them the originals I grew up on first
I would never show my kids this, full stop
I get the feeling that in 10-15 years, this Lion King remake will be like Lion King 2 and the other Lion King sequel/prequel. They'd be mostly forgotten and seen as inferior to the original.
@@magic75450 I get what you're saying, but I've seen plenty of people talk about the other movies. When people talk about this remake in 10 years, it would just be a quick simple "Oh yeah, that was a movie that existed."
My girls love anything Lion King so they've seen this and all the sequels. I'm glad the original is still their favorite.
"realer isn't always better" makes me think of the uncanny valley effect. It may not be as strong when they're not humanoid but it's still there in another sense.
Too be honest the animation in this film, though impressive, isn't that groundbreaking. The hyper realistic 3D has already been done before. Anyone ever seen Guardians of Ga'hoole.
Oh yeah, I remember watching that movie. The animation studio, Animal Logic, usually do a really good job on having realistic looking animals with emotion without making them look creepy or in the uncanny valley territory.
@@michaelstrong5383 Thats the thing. While Lion King '19s animation is a double edged sword, Guardians wasn't a cash grab that disrespects it's source material and the animation medium itself.
@@thekaijumaster200x3 eh, that said, as someone who grew up on those books they still didnt do a great job with the Guardians movie, they mashed like 3 different plot lines together and mixed two separate factions into one entity. they did have amazing style though in terms of animation
@@beauvillamor621 Agreed
@@beauvillamor621 Oh yeah I reckon its a pretty good film for those who haven't read the books and I'm one of those ppl but ye it was way better than the lion king 2019 remake, there was wayy more expression in the owls and the voice acting was good as well and the animation was on pointt and it felt quite realistic in terms of emotion, it all worked together quite nicely I think but I haven't read the books so idrk but thats my interpretation of it.
Something that REALLY bothered me about this movie, that I feel isn’t talked about enough, is the scene where Mufasa appears in the sky after Simba’s lost his way. The way that it was executed was terrible. You see the problems mentioned in this video, such as the character models having no facial expression whatsoever, in places where there should be an excessive amount. But the way the lines are said in this scene specifically, is actually the worst thing about this film imo. They’re emotionless, and it’s even more obvious when you have a scene that everyone expects to be the emotional highlight of the film. And instead of making Mufasa clear and identifiable as well as iconic and intense like in the cartoon version, it was hard to even see him in this version. Like, I had to go back and watch the scene multiple times to figure out what people were mentioning about him being in the clouds. And that’s NOT GOOD.
Ahh, I didn't even get that far in the movie. I hard quit the movie after the stampede scene because I was so bored and underwhelmed by the whole movie. That scene in the ORIGINAL movie still makes my heart pound, but the remake? Nada.
@@JenamDrag0n I hard quit at the mouse scene in the beginning. It felt like it took ten minutes to follow this mouse going about his day and ending up in Scar’s cave, and then Scar’s voice actor took forever delivering his lines. Nope, thanks, I hated it.
Also why does Scar have to look like he’s suffering from mange? Imho, Scar’s villainous appeal came from him being elegant looking.
And it's such a shame because that's what made the original so iconic and one of the best films of the 90s Disney Renassaince
Closed my eyes and this is what I heard.
Original: Acting
Remake: reading their lines.
No personality, just flat, bland, speaking that gave zero weight to what was happening. Lije, do you remember those old VHS tapes the teacher made the class watch? You know the ones, where its live action but still images and the people spoke as if they were acting. It was always eerily quiet, but at least they gave some emotion.
The remake doesn't inspire anything in that one take, and TLK has a big place in my heart as a kid. So I'm glad I never saw the remake. No disrespect to the cast involved, but it doesn't sound like they were trying.
"This movie is not made for you is for kids" I'm willing to bet that if you get a kid to pick between the movies it would pick the og one
@marianne mccrank those types of people say cartoons are for babies but they can watch Naruto: Shippuden or Dragon Ball Z any day
@Cyberdemon Mike To be fair, the live action Cinderella is one of the only good remakes that attempted to do its own thing. It's still not my favorite but it's not on the same level as the other remakes.
Yes my 6 year old son watched the Aladin remake. After I played him some scenes from the cartoon. He liked the songs and visuals in the cartoon more.
The human voices coming out of realistic animals keep the animation stuck in the uncanny valley.
Considering all the animé I've watched, I'd be up for subtitles as the animals speak with actual animal sounds instead of English.
It worked for Narnia, with Aslan being voiced by Qui-Gon Jinn.
Still, there was a human cast right next to the CGI Lion. Might have been them that made the movie great.
@@JohnDoe-hr4cf Also because Aslan was supposed to be a magical creature, so it's easier to suspend disbelief, whereas Simba and Nala are supposed to be ordinary lions.
It's not even that. Go watch Mr Ed, he's much more believable than this crap, and that's a REAL HORSE. If you can't find that show, then find any "Francis" movie, which features a real mule.
@@JohnDoe-hr4cf What are you, some kinda human supremacist?
I took my nephew as an excuse to watch this. He was so scared of the lions he left the room crying.
An observation: My generation has become more and more cynical/pessimistic and obsessed with "realistic" visuals and tone. The 80s and 90s felt more like they were marked by romanticism and idealism in it's beautiful music and animation. This attitude extends beyond media, but it feels like media clearly shows this tonal shift in the last 20 years. The differences between the original Lion King and the remake is just one example of how it's difficult to recapture magic because the "realistic = better" mentality. You're totally right. Technology is improving and great, but it isn't used as effectively as it could be in my opinion.
I would call you a boomer buts that meme is dead like your grandma
Technology is being used as a substitute for real creativity, the more "realistic" and gritty it is the more refined and mature its considered. There's a lot of people who probably feel like they can't be caught dead watching an animated movie anymore because they're 'too old', but "realistic" talking animals, now that's grown up business.
Which is only made weirder given that our generations grew up with the likes of Dr. Doolittle and Ace Ventura.
@@tangdynasty4779 I'm like 25. I said "my generation" for a reason. I don't care what era it's from. I know what I like, and there are things that I like from this decade, last decade, and many before as well.
he's not Gen-Z guy so we're good us as gen z whant something fricken funny not live action
@@swagless6719 lol, you think that's a gen z thing?
Do people really defend bad movies as ‘for children’? When we were children our films were better, right? We had the original Disney movies - back when they cared. Why should this generation’s children have to put up with less?
This is what I always say!
People dismiss the criticism as just whiney Millennials chasing nostalgia, when, in fact, they wouldn't make any money on this if not for Millennials chasing nostalgia!
I don't feel sorry for my generation with these flims, I feel sorry for the ones who are kids now! At least we got new and creative films like Aladdin and The Lion King and Mulan.
Now, they had Frozen, and Zootopia (which I loved!), and recently Moana...but more and more all Disney is making is remakes. That just makes me sad for the kids of this generation.
They aren't getting moments like seeing the Circle of Life intro in all it's beautifully drawn glory for the first time in the theater (I don't remember much from when I was 8, but I remember that!), or the zany fun of Genie in Aladdin, or the balance in Mulan of soulful songs of self-discovery with moments of comic relief. They're just getting empty imitations of them.
There’s also junk like Minions and Trolls. Disney HAVE put out more original content recently, which makes this all the more shameful.
Rest in peace, Robin Williams❤️
I hated everything in these "live action" imitations. I hated the voices and the actors. I hated the visuals. It was all cardboard.
Yet it sounds like you saw at least 3-4 films, despite hating them.
@@magic75450 I did not pay for any nor watch commercials.
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrg, a pirate's life fer me!
The Jungle Book seems to have been the one that came the closest to getting it right. It follows the book more closely in plot and tone. The whole third act is practically unrecognizable from the animated classic. That's more what these live-action remakes should have done. The "original" films already took pretty huge liberties from their literary and folklore source material, so there was plenty to work with in making the remakes different from their predecessors.
@@lugbzurg8987 That is one I haven't seen. It did look like they put some actual effort into that one.
Pete's Dragon was good though, but then I never really liked the original. And Lady and the Tramp won me over, and that's massively attached. It's the version I can watch without crying because it's what I used to watch with my nan every weekend, and obviously it doesn't feel right to watch the original anymore.
Lion King, ew - And I LOVE the stage shows and original animated version.
Beauty and the Beast, meh. I like original well enough.
Jungle Book, meh. Same again.
I'll give Mulan a watch but I do not have my hopes up anymore.
Here’s something I like to do just for fun: I like to imagine the actors recording their lines in their booth. It’s a lot of fun, I like imagining their movements and the reactions of the people recording them. I do it randomly, when watching movies, anime and cartoons.
What I’ve learned: the harder it is to imagine an actor in a booth, the longer it takes, the foggier the image, the easier I am distracted back to watching the show. The better the voice acting. Scott Freeman as England in Hetalia, Clifford Chapin as Bakugou Katsuki in My Hero Academia, Jessie Flower as Toph in Avatar, Tom Hanks as Woody in Toy Story. I can’t see any of them a booth. I see ... the character..
The easier it is to see an actor in a booth, especially on the first viewing: the worst it is. The more I don’t believe what I see is real.
The animators filmed them while the voice actors did their work. They got inspiration from the facial expressions and body movements!
Damn, ‘Go the Distance’, caught me off guard. Talk about bringing up deep emotions..
7:44 - *"Realer isn't always better"*
*Indie Games:* Well said
Ngl, someone sent me a clip of the movie once, and I immediately said "Nope."
Scar was prolly one of the most terrifying villains i've known, and thats by the sneer in his voice alone. He SOUNDS like he's plotting your murder as he TALKS to you, as if he knows every secret you've hidden, all the way to its deepest point... AND ITS GONE. Just a guy reading a script with a plain voice... Was disappointed as hell to see them make Scar seem less evil
makes you miss the direct to DVD era.
I probably wouldn't mind Disney's Live Action Remakes if they only did them every 3-5 years, while still having time to make Original Animated Films, like Gigantic, but they're just overdoing it.