Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Romulan_spy, Nov 22, 2018.
For CGI, the animals looked pretty darn real to me. CGI has come a long way.
Real animals wanted too much money I hear.
The animal union is notoriously difficult to work with, too.
I herd that, too, actually.
Dumbo is their union leader.
Training zebra is incredibly difficult. No way they would have been real. (I read somewhere, in some book a long time back, that in the olden days of Hollywood – pre modern VFX basically – that if they needed a zebra for a movie and it had to be trained to do anything they would just get a horse and paint stripes on it.)
My problem with this movie is that it's not a actually "live-action" movie despite Disney's claim to the contrary.
The Jungle Book was a live-action film because of the presence of human characters like Mowgli; The Lion King is devoid of human presence, and is therefore nothing more than an animated film that uses photorealistic CGI, and it bothers me that Disney is selling the film as something it isn't.
Except they've never actually called it live action, only other media have. I can't find the article I read that showed the breakdown of how the news keeps calling it live action when Disney does not, but if you actually look closely, you'll see it yourself.
Original press release ("new reimagining").
^ Disney might not have flat-out stated that this new Lion King is considered by them to be a "live-action" film, but they have continually compared it to The Jungle Book, which is considered by them to be a "live-action" film, so the implication is certainly there that TLK is meant to be seen as a " live-action " remake of the original animated TLK film despite not actually being "live-action", which bothers me.
They compared this film to The Jungle Book because the same technology is used and because Jon Favreau directed both. Anything else is an assumption and you should direct your displeasure at those assumptions (by yourself and the media) than at Disney itself.
I think the better description for the film is photo-realism, which I've seen pop up more recently.
I don't know who edited the film's Wikipedia article, but it does stress that the film isn't "live-action" , which makes me happy.
I just wish Disney would come out and definitively classify the film as not being "live-action" instead of ambiguously marketing it and letting implications define the conversation around it.
I read the same thing at some point. Also read a news article that some small zoo panted a horse to make it look like a zebra. I'm hoping that was all a lie because that's a shity thing to do to a horse.
I suspect Disney might be wanting to classify it that way as an artificial way of avoiding confusion between the classic animated movie and this new version. However, that's a poor excuse. I see that on IMDB, it's listed as being a "CGI re-imagining of the 1994 Disney classic." which works for me and might be the official line.
I think the movie is pointless, but complaining about it being 'live action' at this point is silly. But it is stunningly beautiful. However so is the classic version.
Now that you mention it, I remember hearing the same thing at some point on some documentary about movie-making back in the day.
Yeah, I think I heard it was done for b&w movies such as in the Three Stooges and Laurel & Hardy, where you would never see the horse's original colour anyway.
Amy Sedaris has joined the cast as a new character, specifically an elephant shrew.
Truly, in our age of authoritarian politicos and rampant global warming denialism, this profoundly significant matter should be resolved at the highest levels of national discourse.
How about "life-like animation?" And, FWIW, my interest in this film in no way diminishes my love for the original.
The animal effects in the trailer are absolutely stunning. I'm wondering if it will be a close remake of the original (most of the shots from the trailer were from the original), or a loose retelling? The casting is pretty great too. I LOVE James Earl Jones being back as Mufasa and Donald Glover playing Simba and John Oliver playing Zazu are inspired choices. I'm also looking forward to seeing what Chiwetel Ejiofor will bring to the table as Scar. My only complaint casting-wise is replacing Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella's Timon and Pumbaa with Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen. It will be interesting to see (or hear) Seth Rogen playing a character that isn't a stoner. Unless, of course, they make Pumbaa a stoner
Separate names with a comma.