The Lion King (Jon Favreau-directed 'live action' remake, 2019)

Which, more CGI than live action I'm sure but holy cow, the cast.

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23032472_10155077836200954_4579256867758008272_n.jpg?oh=2baa6f8c92595a1698478f2d1cff9de3&oe=5AA0E85A

Eichner and Rogen as Pumbaa and Timon lololol

i'm not waiting two years for this

THERE WILL BE FARTS

Seriously, will James Earl Jones actually need to rerecord his lines?

Pretty much what is going to happen is a new song for Nala, so Beyonce can get an Oscar. (This is not a complaint.)

Stop this bullshit. Now.

Too late!

And in 25 years they'll do an animated remake of this wait hold on.

I...need to see this.

https://youtu.be/4CbLXeGSDxg

really stretching the definition of live action there huh

animals doin human thangs i love it

really stretching the definition of live action there huh

Thank you. There's not a single live action shot in that trailer as far as I can see. 100% CGI.

Finally a cartoon remake of s Disney classic

what ... were you guys imagining when they said live action lion king

like ... trained lions?

monkeys smokin cigarettes

dogs wearin hats and crackin jokes

I was imagining exactly this waste of resources

despise this animation style tbh

john oliver as rowan atkinson is just too much

I do enjoy the idea that “you can’t actually make a live action lion king don’t know if you knew that” would be like a death blow to the idea that this is a pointless waste of time

oh it's definitely a waste of time, it just seemed weird that you guys didn't realize that until you saw the preview

Can there at least be trained meerkats?

I mean I can’t speak for others but I’m not seeing much evidence of surprise itt - it’s in the first post

It's not a question of realizing it, it's more about the fact that the marketing team is using the phrase "live action" and it's being released by a corporate division called Disney Live Action and it's like, words actually mean things, you know?

I’ve heard of words.

a lion king remake that actually used real lions would be hilarious, i imagine it'd be just shot after shot of lions sitting around looking bored accompanied by celebrity voiceovers

Baby Simba is cute as hell, at least.

mmm furry deepfake

unperson, you are right and this is making me insane now

They remade an animated movie with ... a different type of animation!

this is like not even a remake, its a remaster, thank you

original Lion King is not good, boring story and terrible songs etc, but it made a billion dollars and I guess it really will never die.

with this and dumbo they make some of the animals look realistic and then they make the main character a cg blob. maybe it's because they're the only one you see up close with facial expressions. idgi.

Do kids actually want to see these weird looking movies or is it just for like

shut the fuck up pic.twitter.com/WFN4EoWW2N

— ? (@JucheMane) November 2, 2017

Kids will get dragged along I guess, the real target has to be the kidult army

I thought hearing about a live action Lady & the Tramp recently sounded really dodgy but hadn't heard anything about this.
Probably worth seeing for rubbernecking reasons. I don't know, is it worth seeing truly execrable films just so that you know the contrast?

so is disney now 100% devoted to churning out cynical copyright-extension remakes of its previous successes while pixar does all the new ip?

My understanding is yes

Oh no wait they've got Wreckit Ralph 2 coming out for the tru cinephiles

not gonna lie, i'm looking forward to that

if they keep the songs then I'm gonna see this about a dozen times, my kids can't get enough of those tunes & this movie will be better than 99% of the trash that's in theaters aimed at kids

i want to see a cheetah's mouth open up and human talking come out

There are at least 2 Eddie Murphy movies i think you'll be interested in then

The “live action” marketing angle is their way of saying that it has a more realistic style than Madagascar

so is disney now 100% devoted to churning out cynical copyright-extension remakes of its previous successes while pixar does all the new ip?

― sign up for my waterless urinals webinar (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 23 November 2018 09:41 (five hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

idk Coco was a high-water mark for both Disney and Pixar imo

at least they didn't waste money on a new screenplay huh

Maybe Nala can take over Pride Rock in this one.

lmao a new writer actually DID get a screenplay credit for this

Needed to punch up the fart gags

I dunno what they got up to in Denmark Fred but I think most of us can believe it took until 1994 for the Disney Corporation to explore flatulence in their oeuvre

Altho Loony Tunes produced the seminal "He Who Smelt It, Dealt It" featuring Pepe le Pew in 1947 iirc

Quotes from Don Hahn, the director, from when I interviewed him years ago:

"It was controversial. It’s so old hat now, but at the time, especially in a Disney movie, there was a feeling that you couldn’t do that. We were more open to take risks, since we were already taking risks. We felt that, my God, they’re animals, what do animals do? They don’t have opposable thumbs, so they can’t pick up anything. Well, they run around and they poop. It’s just a funny character trait to assign to a wart hog. We had great support from the exectutives at the time. Once we previewed it a few times and the audience loved it – we got big kid laughs every time Poomba had his little problems. Interestingly, it’s all trombone sounds."

In Shr5k they’re gonna finally gonna show him cumming

it’s about time he returned the favour

lmao

loooooool

This looks fun.

The Lion King is a wonderful adaptation of an iconic classic. It has a few small changes which enhance what was already great and everything else is right on point. The CG can be slightly distracting at times but the emotion quickly covers that. Loved it. pic.twitter.com/9QmsP3PmNh

— Germain Lussier (@GermainLussier) July 10, 2019

wow the reviews are in it must be good

WaPo editorial yesterday made a p convincing case that this film/the basic story/source material are essentially fascist (regardless of the ethnicity of the voice talent).

We knew that in '94 tho, no?

Probably, I just hadnt thought about it

Also, I've no idea which thread this belongs in, if any, but ...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D--gK60XsAEi3rY.jpg

WaPo editorial yesterday made a p convincing case that this film/the basic story/source material are essentially fascist (regardless of the ethnicity of the voice talent).

― Οὖτις, Thursday, July 11, 2019 9:52 AM (fourteen minutes ago)

hamlet?

idk how far back you wanna trace the lost prince vs. usurper of the throne plotline but it goes back way before Hamlet

(and that's not really one of the aspects that are fascistic)

this looks like dogshit

half the point of hamlet is that it is a psychedelic self-deconstructing version of a story you already know. it couldn't be hamlet if its plot were original. the lion king has more to do with henry iv anyway imo.

did not see wapo piece but yes clearly the hyenas are an underclass repressed in the name of a supposedly virtuous natural hierarchy that organizes sentient beings by species. scar at least is an interesting figure tho: not merely a pretender but a political adventurer, glibly fluent in revolutionary language for the purpose of exploiting class division on his way to supreme personal power. (his death at the vengeful hands of the very disaffected who formed his core support is nifty.) given this villain all the movie actually needs to become antifascist (if not antimonarchical) is for simba to learn values from timon and pumbaa that convince him to abandon his evil father's pious blather about the food chain and grant the hyenas full citizenship. by avoiding both this ending and its tragic mirror, in which t+p are cruelly banished (like falstaff) in a symbolic restoration of (im)moral order, i'm sorry to say that the film renders itself juvenile.

Lotta Richard III in Lion King too, obviously.

def-- scar is nothing like claudius tbh

half the point of hamlet is that it is a psychedelic self-deconstructing version of a story you already know. it couldn't be hamlet if its plot were original. the lion king has more to do with henry iv anyway imo.

I'm assuming that the people who wrote disney's the lion king are not experts in pre-early modern english literature and that the basic structure of "heir to the throne's father is killed by his uncle - who makes it look like an accident and usurps power to become king. prince fucks around a bit for a while - hamlet with the actors and rosenkrantz and guildenstern, simba with poomba and timon (ok poomba and timon are good guys and r and g are spies for claudius). mufasa is horatio (ok that's a stretch)" is more likely to have been taken from one of the best known pieces of world literature than not.

Which Shakespeare play is it where a warthog's dank farts kill all fauna within six yards' distance?

merry wives

there are a number of fart jokes in shakespeare's oeuvre

thanks for the fascism heads up comrades, my cousin wanted me to take him to see this so i punched him in the face

Good!

cousin-punching is praxis

They talk, yes, which makes them likely to set up a fascistic dictatorship (the dictator dictates, i.e. speaks) but the fact that these are animals is not irrelevant to the tale. Aesop, La Fontaine and their ilk are least interesting when read as allegorical anthropomorphists.

i have shot mine arrow o'er the house,
and punched my cousin

Comedy of Errors: "A man may break a word with you, sir, and words are but wind
Ay, and break it in your face, so he break it not behind."

Othello: "CLOWN: Are these, I pray you, wind instruments?
FIRST MUSICIAN: Ay marry are they, sir.
CLOWN: O, thereby hangs a tail.
FIRST MUSICIAN: Whereby hangs a tail, sir?
CLOWN: Marry, sir, by many a wind instrument that I know."

And many more!

dlh otm, maybe you should write a wapo editorial about this movie

…and apply for an assistant professorship in Media Studies at the University of Utrecht.

*"The Aristocrats!" tone of voice* "The Lion King!"

"The Aristocrats!" also would have worked at the end of Midsommer.

They're deepfake-action remaking The Aristocats now too?

Yep! And Mulan!

And Little Mermaid!

They talk, yes, which makes them likely to set up a fascistic dictatorship (the dictator dictates, i.e. speaks) but the fact that these are animals is not irrelevant to the tale.

well it cuts both ways right cuz its preshishely becaushh they are animals that the natural order of predation can be so explicitly defended (just as human fascism must wrap itself in darwinian rhetoric). and since they not only talk but all talk the same language-- and since, ed aside, they are all fully sapient (made with such large discourse, looking before and after)-- it is hard for me to read the movie as glimpse into alien landscape. intrigued tho

in fairness the hyenas are shunned due to their overconsumption - which when allowed to continue unchecked under scar destroys the ecosystem - and thus are not really analogous to subaltern populations in our world - who consume much less than the rich and powerful

counterpoint: that characteristic slots neatly into caricatures of "welfare queens", "lazy" black people etc.

or Jews as rapacious parasites etc

Oh right, Jon Favreau directed it!

xp

well it cuts both ways right cuz its preshishely becaushh they are animals that the natural order of predation can be so explicitly defended (just as human fascism must wrap itself in darwinian rhetoric). and since they not only talk but all talk the same language-- and since, ed aside, they are all fully sapient (made with such large discourse, looking before and after)-- it is hard for me to read the movie as glimpse into alien landscape. intrigued tho

It does cut both ways, no question about it, but speaking on behalf of kid pomenitul, exposure to fable-like narratives was primarily a means of encountering an otherness and strangeness beyond human ken rather than a mere mirror of adult mores. Denying their pedagogical, domesticating function would be silly, but allegories are always more (or less) than just allegories: there is an inevitable opaqueness to them that thwarts authorial and hence moral intent. Utterly transparent allegories (or symbols, for that matter) are a pipe dream and child me was mostly glad to catch a glimpse of the animal 'kingdom', irrespective of its presumed social/hierarchical structures, which I found less interesting than the individual characters on display, as well as the art and voice acting that brings them to life.

oh for sure, to be clear i watched this movie on vhs more or less daily 1995-1996 and had a crush on nala

Review: 'The Lion King' looks so realistic it makes the music sound fake | Datebook https://t.co/kJeLySJEcB

— Mick LaSalle (@MickLaSalle) July 17, 2019

Which just goes to prove ...

Lion King reviews are camp.

— Kyle Stevens (@cinementalist) July 11, 2019

watching this on TV now, how on earth did they manage to fuck it up this badly? every character looks like it's been killed, stuffed and had its lips animated with the wombo app

i saw two seconds of it, channel-hopping, and it looks even stupider than i imagined

their rules are baffling - their realism accepts lions talking and singing and believing in the divine right of kings but not dancing or emoting or being gay (disney won't rest until they've reimagined all their great villains as straight)