• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Bliman

User Requested Ban
Banned
Jan 21, 2019
1,443
For comparison, as if it's needed:

DZpIBgK.gif

XRGblw5.gif

2b6RcGj.gif

5BzaAJ5.gif

6MTu5Be.gif

iXvRbXC.gif
That is also beautiful. And it is clearly a whole different approach.
 

Zulith

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,738
West Coast, USA
Seeing it in Dolby Cinema first thing Friday morning. My expectations are really low... but hopefully there's a few things about it I'll appreciate.

I'm not sure what happened since Jungle Book. But I'm hoping The Mandalorian can begin Favreau's redemption arc
 

Lifejumper

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,259
Huh how did favreau miss the mark so much?

Spread too thin with him doing the mandalorian, spider - man and chef show?
 

Crazyorloco

Member
Dec 12, 2017
1,260
Just got back from seeing it.

Yeah, wow, so I thought I was being too harsh but the film honestly doesn't hold a candle to the original. I went in with an open mind. I actually hoped it wouldn't be a shot by shot remake as Circle of Life would probably lead you to believe. However, I just can't deny the flaws.

James Earl Jones' performance is flat. I couldn't feel any emotion coming from him. Remember how he nailed the mix of utter disappointment in the original? In the remake there's... nothing. It's like he's just reading a script.

One of its biggest crimes was that they replaced the iconic music during Simba's return with a pop song. It felt so out of place.

In the ending, this might sound nitpicky, but he roars too early. Even if you don't compare it to the perfect sync of the original, the early roar felt empty.

I like that it tries to be different, and I actually wanted it to be that way. However, sometimes difference for difference' sake isn't always good.

Also, I can't understand why all the characters looked emotionless. I didn't get that vibe when I watched Jungle Book. Something was just missing.

I can't wholeheartedly recommend the film, especially for fans of the original. It can't decide whether it wants to be a 3d animated film with talking animals, or a 3d animated film pretending to be live action.

Jesus. I've been disappointed by the trailers.... im seeing the original movie tonight at home (im a huge fan of it, I have it on every media format!) and seeing the remake tomorrow night with my daughter. Posting my thoughts on it soon.
 

Bliman

User Requested Ban
Banned
Jan 21, 2019
1,443
I thought of seeing it in the cinema. But now I have seen more I will not go. It's sad that they screwed it up this much. This could have been so good. It is weird they didn't see the problems.
 

MadeULook

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
2,170
Washington State
Seeing this in Dolby Saturday afternoon and this thread has set my expectations to the bare minimum. Not like they were all that high to begin with judging by the footage I've seen already.

I guess at the least it's an excuse to go out of the house for two hours.
 

Khasim

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,260
I hate people defending the look of this movie with the 'but it's supposed to look realistic!' argument.

Here's a screenshot from Planet Earth II, a documentary series:

1478272206-planet-earth-ii-pygmy-sloth.jpg


Desaturated colors =/= realism

This comment sums it up nicely

 

Glenn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,288
I've been complaining.. but I Just Can't Wait to be King looks good to me.

My expectations have been set that they're just doing a Planet Earth adaptation, so obviously they're not gonna have simba jumping on giraffe heads.

Still.. there's no point to this movie other than being a cool VFX reel (and all the money it will make)
 

Astral

Member
Oct 27, 2017
28,010
Man maybe the clips don't do the songs justice but that shit looks so bland. It's just normal-ass lions running around with music playing in the background. I mean, it looks pretty but that's not enough. There's zero energy there.
 

Jarmel

The Jackrabbit Always Wins
Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,296
New York
Normally I'm super against this but they should have just done a shot for shot remake if this is the effort the storyboarders and director were going to put into this.
 

Ensoul

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,348
Reviews don't sound great but I am not sure it matters because it will still make 350 million dollars.
 

Otnopolit

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,590
Checked out the clips, reminds me of Beverly Hills Chihuahua. I'm serious, they focused too much on what animals can do while looking realistic and believable. What a shame. And the colors. I'm not even going to see this and it still bums me out.
 

Tophat Jones

Alt Account
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
14,946
Should have remade it in the modern day Disney animation style, or gone the Milo and Otis route and don't attempt a shot for shot remake that doesn't have a chance in hell to be as good as the original.
 

Jean Valjean

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
898
As someone who knows every line of the script of the original by heart (both the English and Brazilian Portuguese versions), I'm watching this new version in less than 12 hours with no fear in my heart. lol
 

xyla

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,384
Germany
What a pity, I had faith in Favrou and was looking forward to this - it looked okay to me in the trailers, but the Hakuna Matata comparison in this thread is really bad.
 

Saucycarpdog

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,293
Can we go back to animation? Was The Princess and the Frog really the last one?
They won't bring it back sadly. There's just too few people doing it nowadays and it gets to be costly. Just at Mary Poppins Returns. Creating the hand drawn animation in it was tough for the team.

"The big challenge was trying to put that crew together almost overnight," he says. Finding enough animators with 2D paper experience who were available required using a few animators from Europe and bringing in a couple of artists from Brazil. For most, the chance to work on a sequel to "Mary Poppins" was a big draw, Duncan says.
Former Pixar story artist Jim Capobianco supervised the animation sequence for director Rob Marshall and entrusted the work to Pasadena-based Duncan Studio, one of a very few animation houses producing paper-drawn 2D animation in the CG age.
 
Nov 1, 2017
3,200
It's wild that the RT score is hanging around 60% considering the negative reviews are among the most negative reviews I've ever seen. I guess you'll either like it or really really hate it.
 

Doran

Member
Jun 9, 2018
1,847
Now I am starting to wonder how it has gotten so many good reviews, some of these clips are brutal. The voice acting and lifelessness is a badddd combo.
 

Heshinsi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,090
So for people who have seen the film, is it more or less exciting than this clip from the new BBC series Serengeti? Also, I'm just going to pretend this is a LK prequel, and Sefu is actually Scar. Lazy ass almost got those cubs killed 😳

 

jett

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,652

The Struggler

Alt Account
Banned
Jul 3, 2019
739
Im sitting here thinkinf I would have wished if they had a shot for shot ramake, least then they wouldnt lose the intensity and passion the old movie had and it would have been a suitable update.
 

TheBaldwin

Member
Feb 25, 2018
8,279
It just looks like a nature documentary but with some weird uncanny valley shit put onto there mouths.

I've enjoyed the disney remakes up until this point but this is just eh. Looks like a complete remake but without any of the life or visually interesting aspects of the original.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
Rowan Atkinson's performance absolutely and unequivocally blows away John Oliver's performance here. Like, professional versus Middle School production.

How did they manage to make John Oliver as Zazu BORING?

I think John Oliver isn't really suited to playing the sort of stuffy, pompous buffoon that is Zazu compared to Atkinson. He's an animated fellow but I think that works against him for a role like this.
 

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,371
I don't understand how people at Disney didn't look at this and go, "...yeah this doesn't work at all."
 

Seesaw15

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,809
I think a lot of folks in this thread are overestimating how much the general public values 2D animation/design. If its a cartoon/has a cartoon aesthetic most people won't see it or automatically put it in the "kids genre" ghetto. The fact that its so hyper realistic will be a draw for people because it makes it more "serious/adult/legitimate" etc.

This will probably be another situation where film twitter mercilessly dunk on the movie while general audiences eat it up.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
115,433
I think a lot of folks in this thread are overestimating how much the general public values 2D animation/design. If its a cartoon/has a cartoon aesthetic most people won't see it or automatically put it in the "kids genre" ghetto. The fact that its so hyper realistic will be a draw for people because it makes it more "serious/adult/legitimate" etc.

This will probably be another situation where film twitter mercilessly dunk on the movie while general audiences eat it up.

I think the distinction here is that the CGI actively works against the characterization and the story they're trying to tell. They're trying to tell a hyper-emotional story with characters that literally cannot emote and voice actors who are deliberately giving out subdued, restrained performances because of this.

The story they're trying to tell simply does not function effectively with the visual style they're using to tell it. They could've made the realistic CGI animals emote more and it would've been way, way more effective at telling this story.