Yeah I was gonna snark but then the music went all "nants ingonyama bagithi baba sithi uhm ingonyama" and I just couldn't.
So here you go.
Remember...
The Lion King "live action" adaptation.
- Thread starter Veho
- Start date
- Views 1,775
- Replies 14
- Likes 3
Yeah I was gonna snark but then the music went all "nants ingonyama bagithi baba sithi uhm ingonyama" and I just couldn't.
So here you go.
Remember...
Saw it on TV earlier.
Visuals have a bit of the uncanny valley to them, and at the same time it feels a lot less grandiose than the cartoon -- the little jut of rock the new baby ritual scene was happening on... I might have tripped over bigger rocks in my back garden.
I did not have the same problem with the Jungle Book retread. That had different problems which sank it but the visuals and... I guess it would be set design was fine.
Visuals have a bit of the uncanny valley to them, and at the same time it feels a lot less grandiose than the cartoon -- the little jut of rock the new baby ritual scene was happening on... I might have tripped over bigger rocks in my back garden.
I did not have the same problem with the Jungle Book retread. That had different problems which sank it but the visuals and... I guess it would be set design was fine.
Next trailer is... showing Timon and Pumba in live action! I love "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" song forever! 
Hello.
The Disney movies have been with me all my life so far:
From Snowwhite,Pinocchio,Fantasia,Dumbo,Bambi,Cinderella,Alice in Wonderland,Peter Pan,The Sword in the Stone,Robin Hood,Aristocats,Winnie Puh to Arielle,Aladdin,Lion King,Pocahontas,The Hunchback,Hercules,Mulan,Tarzan.......
I was convinced from 2019er Aladdin.Also from Will Smith.Yes that was a good work from "Disney".
So I had good hope for 2019er Lion King.Sadly a very bad mistake from me.
I am still speechless what they have done with the 1994er Lion King "Masterpiece" of Animation Movies (with Computer "support").
And to be honest, the "movie pleasure" has cost me today thank God nothing. It would have been a waste of money for me. The 120 minutes of my life are just gone....
One of my greatest Childhood memory,another Pillar of my childhood goes down the drain.....
Thank you.
The Disney movies have been with me all my life so far:
From Snowwhite,Pinocchio,Fantasia,Dumbo,Bambi,Cinderella,Alice in Wonderland,Peter Pan,The Sword in the Stone,Robin Hood,Aristocats,Winnie Puh to Arielle,Aladdin,Lion King,Pocahontas,The Hunchback,Hercules,Mulan,Tarzan.......
I was convinced from 2019er Aladdin.Also from Will Smith.Yes that was a good work from "Disney".
So I had good hope for 2019er Lion King.Sadly a very bad mistake from me.
I am still speechless what they have done with the 1994er Lion King "Masterpiece" of Animation Movies (with Computer "support").
And to be honest, the "movie pleasure" has cost me today thank God nothing. It would have been a waste of money for me. The 120 minutes of my life are just gone....
One of my greatest Childhood memory,another Pillar of my childhood goes down the drain.....
Thank you.
Okay...so my girlfriend dragged me into this movie the other weekend. In "4DX", no less, which was a first for me.
For those unfamiliar with 4DX (I certainly was)...it's a bunch of technology that "makes you feel more immersed in the movie". Meaning: the chairs can hover and rock about, it can make floating bubbles and smoke, splash water (which luckily can be turned off) and spray some perfume. Oh, and there are some more lightning effects going on.
It's impressive, but...is probably better fitted for pure action movies or even just those virtual space rides. For this sort of movie*, it was mostly overkill. Not distracting, luckily enough, but hardly an extra.
...the movie, on the other hand far, far, FAR exceeded my expectations. And it deserves some closer look...
I've seen the lion king as a kid (can't remember if it was in a theater...it's too long ago). Quite good, but I never was much into Disney cartoons even back then. It was just a courteous move toward my girlfriend to agree to come with her, or I would've skipped it.
Also: I've seen computer animations rise since toy story (from a distance: as said...I'm not their main audience). Movies like finding nemo and Coraline are all "it's nice, but not really believable". Heck...before Lord of the Ring's Gollum, having animated characters in a movie automatically counted as a negative (Jar-Jar, anyone?). And okay, I liked Avatar, but even that was a good movie rather despite whatever the technology was that made things possible (meaning: when I watched it years later on television, I thought it was exactly the same).
Most likely, this technology just kept on progressing without me paying attention until now. And...well...there is this field in robotica, that is actually described as being "the uncanny valley". As long as robots are clearly distinct from humans, we don't really mind. But the "the closer it is to actually being human the better the likeness" isn't a straight curve. At one point, it takes a serious dip downwards. This is the "horror movie" situation, where things on the surface seem recognizable, but where tiny details trigger our internal warning signals. The solution is to keep at it: once the improvement is even better, it becomes 'normal' again.
And what does this say about this movie? That it is believable. The landscapes are incredibly beautiful in a real-world kind of way. Animals in cartoons often behave "extra animal"-like to highlight their character (think cats doing backflips when they're excited), and since it's Disney, you obviously can't avoid songs. Remember the cartoons that usually end with at least some sort of firework and/or human pyramid? Well...that isn't here. Because this isn't a cartoon version. This is - and I know I'm talking about animation here - real. When one of the lions yawns, it yawns like an actual lion. Excitement isn't expressed in jumping up and down (okay: that as well...somewhat) but mostly in facial expressions.
I can blab a bunch more about the story and how it's a far cry from lots of the other movies of this day and age (the average movie now has much more plot twists and locations, and Mufasa would at best be the local hippie), but that's more or less how it was (okay: one thing...I really like Scar as the villain. He manages to be iconic without being a cliché).
Honestly: the only thing that was a bit surreal in this nature's documentary is that the animals talked and sang. Yeah...I know. Kind of the elephant in the room, right? It obviously wouldn't be a Disney movie (or a compelling movie at all) if that wasn't in it, but even so...great movie.
Oh, and perhaps one last thing about 3DX: perhaps it would be better in this sort of movie if it didn't try to impress so much. Yes, you've got moving chairs. That's nice, but it's not needed to keep them moving EVERY FREAKING SECOND. And a bit of shake when an elephant stampedes by is okay, but you don't need to add little mini-shakes (?) whenever a mouse is on screen. The advantage of smell eludes me, but I don't really dare to complain. Rose petal-flavored moisturizer might not be the most immersive thing to add when Pumba farts, but I REALLY don't want to know whatever can be created on that field!
*rather ironic: children under 12 aren't even allowed to see the movie this way.
For those unfamiliar with 4DX (I certainly was)...it's a bunch of technology that "makes you feel more immersed in the movie". Meaning: the chairs can hover and rock about, it can make floating bubbles and smoke, splash water (which luckily can be turned off) and spray some perfume. Oh, and there are some more lightning effects going on.
It's impressive, but...is probably better fitted for pure action movies or even just those virtual space rides. For this sort of movie*, it was mostly overkill. Not distracting, luckily enough, but hardly an extra.
...the movie, on the other hand far, far, FAR exceeded my expectations. And it deserves some closer look...
I've seen the lion king as a kid (can't remember if it was in a theater...it's too long ago). Quite good, but I never was much into Disney cartoons even back then. It was just a courteous move toward my girlfriend to agree to come with her, or I would've skipped it.
Also: I've seen computer animations rise since toy story (from a distance: as said...I'm not their main audience). Movies like finding nemo and Coraline are all "it's nice, but not really believable". Heck...before Lord of the Ring's Gollum, having animated characters in a movie automatically counted as a negative (Jar-Jar, anyone?). And okay, I liked Avatar, but even that was a good movie rather despite whatever the technology was that made things possible (meaning: when I watched it years later on television, I thought it was exactly the same).
Most likely, this technology just kept on progressing without me paying attention until now. And...well...there is this field in robotica, that is actually described as being "the uncanny valley". As long as robots are clearly distinct from humans, we don't really mind. But the "the closer it is to actually being human the better the likeness" isn't a straight curve. At one point, it takes a serious dip downwards. This is the "horror movie" situation, where things on the surface seem recognizable, but where tiny details trigger our internal warning signals. The solution is to keep at it: once the improvement is even better, it becomes 'normal' again.
And what does this say about this movie? That it is believable. The landscapes are incredibly beautiful in a real-world kind of way. Animals in cartoons often behave "extra animal"-like to highlight their character (think cats doing backflips when they're excited), and since it's Disney, you obviously can't avoid songs. Remember the cartoons that usually end with at least some sort of firework and/or human pyramid? Well...that isn't here. Because this isn't a cartoon version. This is - and I know I'm talking about animation here - real. When one of the lions yawns, it yawns like an actual lion. Excitement isn't expressed in jumping up and down (okay: that as well...somewhat) but mostly in facial expressions.
I can blab a bunch more about the story and how it's a far cry from lots of the other movies of this day and age (the average movie now has much more plot twists and locations, and Mufasa would at best be the local hippie), but that's more or less how it was (okay: one thing...I really like Scar as the villain. He manages to be iconic without being a cliché).
Honestly: the only thing that was a bit surreal in this nature's documentary is that the animals talked and sang. Yeah...I know. Kind of the elephant in the room, right? It obviously wouldn't be a Disney movie (or a compelling movie at all) if that wasn't in it, but even so...great movie.
Oh, and perhaps one last thing about 3DX: perhaps it would be better in this sort of movie if it didn't try to impress so much. Yes, you've got moving chairs. That's nice, but it's not needed to keep them moving EVERY FREAKING SECOND. And a bit of shake when an elephant stampedes by is okay, but you don't need to add little mini-shakes (?) whenever a mouse is on screen. The advantage of smell eludes me, but I don't really dare to complain. Rose petal-flavored moisturizer might not be the most immersive thing to add when Pumba farts, but I REALLY don't want to know whatever can be created on that field!
*rather ironic: children under 12 aren't even allowed to see the movie this way.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2002
- Messages
- 23,749
- Trophies
- 4
- Age
- 45
- Location
- Engine room, learning
- XP
- 15,649
- Country
I watched it too, and I wasn't expecting much because I already watched the animation years ago. I knew it will be the same story, and I've read comment critisizing because "it looks fake, it's not done well, we see the CGI, etc."
but I've been well surprised by its visual quality. The scenes are very nice, and of course it's "fake", animals don't talk. if you want real animal you can switch your TV on animal documentaries channels.
The French version has some easily recognizable dub actors, which annoyed me. I felt having an actor known for being "funny" in a disney movie which is meant to be kept as popular and classical for time being, having a fun way of acting gave it a little degrading image.
But that also added funny moment listening to his acting way and voice, I just had his face in mind every time. so, it's both funny, but unsure about prosperity.
Finally, what I really liked are the musics (not the songs, but Hans Zimmers musics). I forgot how nice they were and I always watched the animation on TV, it's something else to hear them on big screen
but I've been well surprised by its visual quality. The scenes are very nice, and of course it's "fake", animals don't talk. if you want real animal you can switch your TV on animal documentaries channels.
The French version has some easily recognizable dub actors, which annoyed me. I felt having an actor known for being "funny" in a disney movie which is meant to be kept as popular and classical for time being, having a fun way of acting gave it a little degrading image.
But that also added funny moment listening to his acting way and voice, I just had his face in mind every time. so, it's both funny, but unsure about prosperity.
Finally, what I really liked are the musics (not the songs, but Hans Zimmers musics). I forgot how nice they were and I always watched the animation on TV, it's something else to hear them on big screen
Similar threads
-
- Portal
- Question
