Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Janeway’s Girl, Oct 14, 2018.
Just Hamlet...small time, probably never heard of it
Ok, interesting. That I didn't know
How the fuck do you do a live-action Lion King? Siegfried and Roy back in business?
It’s the current Disney trend, and not their first kick at milking their most successful movies. At the beginning of the last decade or so, they started releasing (mostly) direct to video sequels of their movies. They were pretty much all terrible, making money but at the expense of their reputation and the legacy of these movies.
The slate of live action remakes are instead using the same basic story and changing it up with A-list actors, and dropping big money on it; they have been much more successful overall. I’ve no doubt there will be lemons in this bunch, but I’m not instantly turned off as I was by all the low-budget DTV sequels they made.
It's funny because of some of the DTV sequels are more fun for me than the original. Not all of them, and certainly more lemons in that bunch, but Fox and the Hound 2, and Aladdin: King of Thieves are still among my personal favorite Disney films.
Probably the same way they did The Jungle Book? Just a hunch.
While that's fair, it wouldn't necessarily really count as 'live action', then, would it? There are no human characters in the Lion King for the cgi animations to interact with.
Heh, I haven’t seen either, and now I have a reason not to automatically change the channel the next time I happen upon it.
OTOH, I saw Mulan II a few weeks ago and pretty well regret it. I’m still happy my daughter liked it, if for no other reason than that Mulan herself is a decent enough role model for her. Looking forward to the live action version of this one as such, troubled as it seems to be.
Yeah, those two are the few exceptions. Mulan II is definitely towards the bottom of the list and I regret my daughters watching it as well.
Granted, but it would still be CGI-animated characters existing in a live-action world. Don't need humans to interact with for that to happen.
Exactly my point.
If every character in it is CG animation, it's not live-action. So, IOW, they can't make a live-action Lion King. They can only make a CG animated movie as distinct from cel animation.
I'd say it's kind of a combo since it will probably be CGI characters on a live action background.
You mean a photographic background? Other than grass waving in the wind, you're not going to be seeing much "live action" there.
Admittedly, I feel kind of the same way. I was perplexed when I first heard Disney would be making a live-action version of Lion King and how they could do it since it doesn't feature any people in it. At best, it would be an update to 3D animation. Doesn't really seem like they could call it live-action.
Sounds like 3D animation with photo-realistic characteristics.
I for one am looking forward to the full trailer trumpeting "From the director of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword..."
If the distant fluttering birds are real, is it back to combo live action and animated? It literally only takes 1 real bird for that.
(This is quite the semantic hill to die on)
We really don't know enough at this point to say just how live action the movie is or isn't.
Separate names with a comma.