Jump to content
antovolk

THE LION KING | WITH DIGITAL FUR TECHNOLOGY | July 19 2019 | Jon Favreau Photorealistic CGI Remake | Soulless Cash Grab to end all Soulless Cash Grabs

Recommended Posts

I think if people just ACCEPTED this for what it is, they'd enjoy it much more.

 

Instead, people are too busy comparing it to the original because "OH MY GOD THERE ARE NO EXPRESSIONS, NO COLOR, IT'S TOO REALISTIC".

 

It makes zero sense to me. As a big fan of the original, I see nothing wrong with this. The original will always be there. It's cool to see what it look s like with such technology. To me, it's breathtaking. Some of the shots just have me in awe but I guess you can't please everyone lol

  • Like 11
  • Not Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are worshiping a false idol. Simba is not royalty. 

 

BEHOLD! THE TRUE LION KING!!!

 

 

Edited by LOGAN'sLuckyRun
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElsaRoc said:

*sigh*

 

 

 

On one hand, it's kinda nice that they're calling the new film animation. 

 

On the other, it also shows how the new film is just... worse than the original. And not even from the photo-realistic part (though that does have an effect.) It's just that about every single shot composition is worse.

 

First shot: The sunrise. In the original, the sun is centered, and as it rises, the ripple of heat behind the clouds gives a sense of scale and about the environment. The new one has a smaller sun, it's off to the side, is dwarfed by the trees, and the clouds are hazy, not distinct.

 

Second shot: An antelope raises its head. In the original, it's a dramatic sweep across the frame, drawing the viewer's attention in the direction of the antelope's sight. New film has an off-screen antelope raise its head past the camera real quick, and then a further one back raises its head. The focus is on the antelopes, not on their attention.

 

Third shot: Kilimanjaro. The original has the mountain expansive, with its slopes extending past the edge of the screen, so that it feels vast. The haze and darkness at its base, where the elephants walk, is strongly contrasted with the sunlight at its peak, so you also get a sense of the size. And the elephants stand out from the haze. The new shot is further back, where you can see where the slopes meet the plains. There isn't a strong contrast to get a feel of the height, and the animals are lost in the brown of the base.

 

Fourth shot: The birds. Hoo, boy. The original is a masterpiece shot. The camera pans very slowly, and you have distinct layers to the birds, which are moving along the diagonal, there's a sense of layers and scale and height over the wetlands. The new one switches up the movement to the vertical, with the camera also moving more to fall in behind the birds, which only have a single layer.

 

Fifth shot: The celebration. In the original, the dominant feature is Pride Rock. The animals are clearly celebrating the birth of Simba. The camera is static. The one one is a panning shot, showing all the animals jumping about, but the focus of their celebration is lost.

 

Sixth shot: The footprint. They don't show the original, but I think this was basically the same? 

 

Seventh shot: The wildebeest stampede. The original (again) has the movement largely along the diagonal. The camera pans above the wildebeests to show the canyon and gives you a sense of how many their are, and how much danger they are to anything in their path. This gives a focus on Simba, who we know is down the canyon. The new one follows along with the wildebeests, dropping into a Star Wars trench run shot, which gives the effect of being a wildebeest. The focus isn't on the scale of the danger or what the danger is to.

 

Eighth shot: The reveal of Pride Rock. This one is admittedly close, though why they don't have Zazu's dramatic sweep across the frame is a huge question mark. Also the new Pride Rock doesn't feel nearly as dramatic and imposing as the original. Plus, compare the skies: The original has strong contrasts the blue of the sky with the warm colors reflecting off the clouds and their darker shadows. The new one just looks overcast.

 

Ninth shot: Rafiki. There's a nice closeup in the original, traded for a more medium shot in the new one.

 

Tenth shot: Simba in Sarabi's arms. The original gave a sense of scale. Simba is small. In the new one, he dominates the frame, and you can't really tell what he's on. Plus, here I think the difference of style really comes into play with the eyes. The original shows Simba's curiosity and wonder at the new world. The new one doesn't.

 

Eleventh shot: Rafiki bursting the anointment. In the original, he cracks open a fruit, which is framed by the sun. The new one has him ripping apart a root, with no sun. 

 

Twelfth shot: Rafiki anointing Simba. You can actually see what he's doing in the original. There's a clear red line. Plus, the movement of his finger is to the left, which leaves a clear view of what's being shown. The new one has the... dust lost against Simba's fur, and Rafiki's movement is to the right, which takes the focus away.

 

Thirteenth shot: Animals looking up on Pride Rock as Rafiki brings Simba up. This one is close.

 

Fourteenth shot: Rafiki presenting Simba. Again close, although the original has Simba fully in the screen for a slow wraparound shot, while the new one is empty at first and the focus is on the movement of thrusting him forward.

 

Fifteenth shot: Simba, displayed, looking down at the animals. The original has a more dramatic sweep to the shot, It starts close to behind and then moves down and to the left so that you see not only the animals, but also the vastness of the Pridelands. It's showing that Simba isn't only going to be king of the inhabitants, but also the land itself. The new one reverses the camera movement and only shows the animals.

 

Sixteenth shot: Animals bowing. Close, but the original has the animals as distinct and individual, where the new one they feel more jumbled up.

 

Seventeenth shot: Farther back, showing Rafiki presenting Simba, the animals bowing, and Pride Rock. Again, the new Pride Rock feels lesser, stubbier. But perhaps the biggest issue is where the light is coming from. In the original it's coming from above, breaking through the clouds. In the new one, it's down lower, and the sun is clearly just to the left of the screen. Also the new one feels like showing more of the sky is better than showing more of the animals on the ground.

 

 

There are things I am excited for the new one. I really like the cast. Some of the songs they could add are really good. And if there are new songs, with Lebo M, Elton John, Tim Rice, and Hans Zimmer teaming up again, that's something to be really excited about.

 

But the look of it is so much... less epic than the original. The focus is weird at times, the shots are less dramatic. It feels more like a technical showcase of the computer animation technology than an attempt to really make it grand.

 

As the ad shows, they're basically doing a shot-for-shot remake... but they're doing all the shots wrong.

That's just too much nitpicking. I have an advice for you: don't watch it. You seem to have put so much effort in writing that comment when it seems like you really hate the new one. Just don't bother.

Edited by UserHN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UserHN said:

That's just too much nitpicking. I have an advice for you: don't watch it. You seem to have put so much effort in writing that comment when it seems like you really hate the new one. Just don't bother.

Agree. Sit at home and complain while the rest of the world is at the theater enjoying themselves. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Amorphous said:

I think if people just ACCEPTED this for what it is, they'd enjoy it much more.

 

Instead, people are too busy comparing it to the original because "OH MY GOD THERE ARE NO EXPRESSIONS, NO COLOR, IT'S TOO REALISTIC".

 

It makes zero sense to me. As a big fan of the original, I see nothing wrong with this. The original will always be there. It's cool to see what it look s like with such technology. To me, it's breathtaking. Some of the shots just have me in awe but I guess you can't please everyone lol

The ramblings of random internet peeps on a box office forum does not accurately represent the movie going public. There’s not really any “outrage”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

The ramblings of random internet peeps on a box office forum does not accurately represent the movie going public. There’s not really any “outrage”.

Agree. Aladdin is a perfect example. Internet trolls complaining and crying about little stuff while General audiences gave them the big F U and went enjoyed themselves at the movie. Do these people really think the general audiences care that it is photo-realistic or looks too real or its it's not as colorful as the cartoon version. That's the freaking point.  It's supposed to look real. Its not a cartoon.When will these people learn. General audiences don't give a damn about the movies not colorful enough. They just want to see a live action version of The Lion King with the great songs, great talented voices and a great story we fell in love with and outstanding CGI. 

Edited by Curtis1986
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Amorphous said:

I think if people just ACCEPTED this for what it is, they'd enjoy it much more.

 

Instead, people are too busy comparing it to the original because "OH MY GOD THERE ARE NO EXPRESSIONS, NO COLOR, IT'S TOO REALISTIC".

 

It makes zero sense to me. As a big fan of the original, I see nothing wrong with this. The original will always be there. It's cool to see what it look s like with such technology. To me, it's breathtaking. Some of the shots just have me in awe but I guess you can't please everyone lol

Some people just want to bitch about stuff. I loved the first Aladdin and the "live action one" as well. I'll admit pumba looks creepy but he sounds good. It will be awesome, I just can't wait :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain Marvel and Aladdin (plus Detective Pikachu putting up soft numbers compared to its early Internet hype) have shown us that the Internet really is little more than an echo chamber. The Lion King will follow suit and post crazy huge numbers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already vastly outselling FFH at my theater if it's any indication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Curtis1986 said:

Agree. Aladdin is a perfect example. Internet trolls complaining and crying about little stuff while General audiences gave them the big F U and went enjoyed themselves at the movie. Do these people really think the general audiences care that it is photo-realistic or looks too real or its it's not as colorful as the cartoon version. That's the freaking point.  It's supposed to look real. Its not a cartoon.When will these people learn. General audiences don't give a damn about the movies not colorful enough. They just want to see a live action version of The Lion King with the great songs, great talented voices and a great story we fell in love with and outstanding CGI. 

Just because that is the point doesn't mean it's good.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ElsaRoc said:

*sigh*

 

 

 

On one hand, it's kinda nice that they're calling the new film animation. 

 

On the other, it also shows how the new film is just... worse than the original. And not even from the photo-realistic part (though that does have an effect.) It's just that about every single shot composition is worse.

 

First shot: The sunrise. In the original, the sun is centered, and as it rises, the ripple of heat behind the clouds gives a sense of scale and about the environment. The new one has a smaller sun, it's off to the side, is dwarfed by the trees, and the clouds are hazy, not distinct.

 

Second shot: An antelope raises its head. In the original, it's a dramatic sweep across the frame, drawing the viewer's attention in the direction of the antelope's sight. New film has an off-screen antelope raise its head past the camera real quick, and then a further one back raises its head. The focus is on the antelopes, not on their attention.

 

Third shot: Kilimanjaro. The original has the mountain expansive, with its slopes extending past the edge of the screen, so that it feels vast. The haze and darkness at its base, where the elephants walk, is strongly contrasted with the sunlight at its peak, so you also get a sense of the size. And the elephants stand out from the haze. The new shot is further back, where you can see where the slopes meet the plains. There isn't a strong contrast to get a feel of the height, and the animals are lost in the brown of the base.

 

Fourth shot: The birds. Hoo, boy. The original is a masterpiece shot. The camera pans very slowly, and you have distinct layers to the birds, which are moving along the diagonal, there's a sense of layers and scale and height over the wetlands. The new one switches up the movement to the vertical, with the camera also moving more to fall in behind the birds, which only have a single layer.

 

Fifth shot: The celebration. In the original, the dominant feature is Pride Rock. The animals are clearly celebrating the birth of Simba. The camera is static. The one one is a panning shot, showing all the animals jumping about, but the focus of their celebration is lost.

 

Sixth shot: The footprint. They don't show the original, but I think this was basically the same? 

 

Seventh shot: The wildebeest stampede. The original (again) has the movement largely along the diagonal. The camera pans above the wildebeests to show the canyon and gives you a sense of how many their are, and how much danger they are to anything in their path. This gives a focus on Simba, who we know is down the canyon. The new one follows along with the wildebeests, dropping into a Star Wars trench run shot, which gives the effect of being a wildebeest. The focus isn't on the scale of the danger or what the danger is to.

 

Eighth shot: The reveal of Pride Rock. This one is admittedly close, though why they don't have Zazu's dramatic sweep across the frame is a huge question mark. Also the new Pride Rock doesn't feel nearly as dramatic and imposing as the original. Plus, compare the skies: The original has strong contrasts the blue of the sky with the warm colors reflecting off the clouds and their darker shadows. The new one just looks overcast.

 

Ninth shot: Rafiki. There's a nice closeup in the original, traded for a more medium shot in the new one.

 

Tenth shot: Simba in Sarabi's arms. The original gave a sense of scale. Simba is small. In the new one, he dominates the frame, and you can't really tell what he's on. Plus, here I think the difference of style really comes into play with the eyes. The original shows Simba's curiosity and wonder at the new world. The new one doesn't.

 

Eleventh shot: Rafiki bursting the anointment. In the original, he cracks open a fruit, which is framed by the sun. The new one has him ripping apart a root, with no sun. 

 

Twelfth shot: Rafiki anointing Simba. You can actually see what he's doing in the original. There's a clear red line. Plus, the movement of his finger is to the left, which leaves a clear view of what's being shown. The new one has the... dust lost against Simba's fur, and Rafiki's movement is to the right, which takes the focus away.

 

Thirteenth shot: Animals looking up on Pride Rock as Rafiki brings Simba up. This one is close.

 

Fourteenth shot: Rafiki presenting Simba. Again close, although the original has Simba fully in the screen for a slow wraparound shot, while the new one is empty at first and the focus is on the movement of thrusting him forward.

 

Fifteenth shot: Simba, displayed, looking down at the animals. The original has a more dramatic sweep to the shot, It starts close to behind and then moves down and to the left so that you see not only the animals, but also the vastness of the Pridelands. It's showing that Simba isn't only going to be king of the inhabitants, but also the land itself. The new one reverses the camera movement and only shows the animals.

 

Sixteenth shot: Animals bowing. Close, but the original has the animals as distinct and individual, where the new one they feel more jumbled up.

 

Seventeenth shot: Farther back, showing Rafiki presenting Simba, the animals bowing, and Pride Rock. Again, the new Pride Rock feels lesser, stubbier. But perhaps the biggest issue is where the light is coming from. In the original it's coming from above, breaking through the clouds. In the new one, it's down lower, and the sun is clearly just to the left of the screen. Also the new one feels like showing more of the sky is better than showing more of the animals on the ground.

 

 

There are things I am excited for the new one. I really like the cast. Some of the songs they could add are really good. And if there are new songs, with Lebo M, Elton John, Tim Rice, and Hans Zimmer teaming up again, that's something to be really excited about.

 

But the look of it is so much... less epic than the original. The focus is weird at times, the shots are less dramatic. It feels more like a technical showcase of the computer animation technology than an attempt to really make it grand.

 

As the ad shows, they're basically doing a shot-for-shot remake... but they're doing all the shots wrong.

I agree with everything you said... anyone calling you a troll for providing serious analysis should grow up... BUT... you can’t judge a whole movie by a short clip. The editing and shot choices may make a lot more sense in the style of the individual cinematographer and editor trying to add their own signature to the movie. Imagine how tedious a shot for shot remake would be to work on if you were told to even copy all of the shot composition. So, even if it is technically inferior, it’s at least different. Also, realistic CGI has very different constraints than 2D animation (which is one reason I love 2D animation so much). And let’s be fair, it’s a near impossible ask to say “hey make each shot a little different but also better than the original.” You can’t top perfection. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Just because that is the point doesn't mean it's good.

Well cry about it other boards then. It's going to get amazing reviews and do 500m+ with a 200+ OW. Probably a lot more and it will absolutely go nuts in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cdsacken said:

Well cry about it other boards then. It's going to get amazing reviews and do 500m+ with a 200+ OW. Probably a lot more and it will absolutely go nuts in Europe.

eh... we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TMP said:

eh... we'll see.

 

95ish RT give or take a couple percent.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cdsacken said:

 

95ish RT give or take a couple percent.

Maybe 65-70

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Favreau made it clear there had to be a reason for remaking this, why even make the exact same thing then? I LOVE some good old fashioned 2D animation but aside from Miyazaki, it will never top 3D animation for me, to each his own, but that's why I dig those "remakes". There's something so fascinating and astounding about seeing an almost photoreal version of it, and clearly, a lot of people feel the same way otherwise no one would show. 

 

Each technique has its own charms but this is jaw dropping.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TMP said:

Maybe 65-70

lmao! Junglebook got a 95 and this has better songs, same director and the original James Earl Jones with a star studded cast. It's had a broadway to prepare people for live action for literally 12 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TimmyRiggins said:

Favreau made it clear there had to be a reason for remaking this, why even make the exact same thing then? I LOVE some good old fashioned 2D animation but aside from Miyazaki, it will never top 3D animation for me, to each his own, but that's why I dig those "remakes". There's something so fascinating and astounding about seeing an almost photoreal version of it, and clearly, a lot of people feel the same way otherwise no one would show. 

 

Each technique has its own charms but this is jaw dropping.

Because people have been asking for it for nearly a decade since the musical came out. The same whiny complaints came before Broadway. It's the most successful broadway ever, making way more than Avatar the movie. More than double, actually soon will be triple

Edited by cdsacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will be highest grossing animation of all time, very excited to see it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cdsacken said:

lmao! Junglebook got a 95 and this has better songs, same director and the original James Earl Jones with a star studded cast. It's had a broadway to prepare people for live action for literally 12 years.

Jungle Book was a different beast, it had a lot of new material. This is going to have the Gus Van Sant Psycho problem of being too faithful to the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.