Interesting. I recall people being very critical of the animation for the live action remake, so I'm genuinely surprised to see this. The premise seems like it could be good, but damn it, I miss...
Interesting. I recall people being very critical of the animation for the live action remake, so I'm genuinely surprised to see this. The premise seems like it could be good, but damn it, I miss 2d animation. You just don't get the same level of expression out of characters that look realistic.
My exact reaction upon seeing this was "Please be 2D animated....clicked link....fuck's sake". I just don't get it. Some of the live-action remakes are interesting because it's cool to see how...
My exact reaction upon seeing this was "Please be 2D animated....clicked link....fuck's sake".
I just don't get it. Some of the live-action remakes are interesting because it's cool to see how certain elements of the animated originals translate to live action. Like Genie's magic in Aladdin, the denizens of the castle in Beauty and the Beast, literally everything about Wonderland in Alice in Wonderland, etc. Or it's neat to see actors bring animated characters to life (all 3 of the aforementioned films and 101 Dalmatians comes to mind. And I'm kind of looking forward to Snow White and a few other upcoming ones).
But to just go from 2D animated to 3D animated just does absolutely nothing for me. I've already seen the movie and without anything new or personally interesting about it, I have no motivation to watch a remake. And there's the argument that "it's a kids movie!" but Disney's whole thing has always been that their stuff is appealing to everyone. And this and the first Lion King remake don't appeal to me at all.
That's almost the worst part. It is animated, but they decided to ignore the strongest feature of animation for non-human characters (the ability to better anthromorphize and exaggerate emotions)...
That's almost the worst part. It is animated, but they decided to ignore the strongest feature of animation for non-human characters (the ability to better anthromorphize and exaggerate emotions) with their style. Imo, it ends up feeling uncanny.
I just hate how inconsistent they are with the songs. Like 90% of the magic of those classic Disney movies is the nostalgia, of course, and a big part of that nostalgia are the absolute bangers...
I just hate how inconsistent they are with the songs. Like 90% of the magic of those classic Disney movies is the nostalgia, of course, and a big part of that nostalgia are the absolute bangers they produced. Under the Sea, I'll Make a Man Out of You, Circle of Life.... all instantly recognizable and tough not to sing along to.
They did a great job with the songs in some of the remakes, like Aladin, Little Mermaid, or Beauty and the Beast. They essentially kept all the original songs but then added a couple of new ones. Perfect (at least from a musical perspective). They should have done that with all of the remakes.
For the lion king remake, they ALMOST nailed it with the songs, but then they butchered the best song in the movie (Be Prepared). And then in Mulan they just straight up removed all the songs entirely! WTF! And they removed entire characters and then gave Mulan special powers. What's the point in remaking a story if you're changing major plot points (and removing one of the best songs Disney ever produced).
So you have some remakes that are nearly like-for-like copies of the original, maybe a couple of songs added in, and then you have the ones that completely try to remake the original and just annoy the fans who go in expecting it to be like the former but end up with a completely different movie.
Heck if they really want to change things rather than making like-for-like copies they could just do what they did for Maleficent or Cruella, where they tell a similar-but-different story from the point of view of another one of the characters (in these cases the villains of the originals). Which seems to be what they are doing with this Lion King movie. Fuck me I would KILL for a Hercules movie focusing purely on Hades.
Don't even know where I'm going at this point. Just rambling really. I'm just someone who really loves Disney songs and wish they wouldn't fuck with them so inconsistently.
Mulan was one of those movies I pirated to watch and afterwards told my wife I felt like it wasn't worth the time I wasted to watch it. I just couldn't believe they thought the movie was going to...
Mulan was one of those movies I pirated to watch and afterwards told my wife I felt like it wasn't worth the time I wasted to watch it. I just couldn't believe they thought the movie was going to be a success.
Mulan was my wife's favorite Disney movie growing up and was incredibly popular in the state she grew up in (she's ethnically Chinese in the most ethnically Chinese state in her country). She said it felt like they tried to capitalize on the nostalgia but didn't try to capture anything that made the movie special.
I feel like I am the only one who liked the new Mulan. It's good precisely because it's not too much like the original; it feels a lot more like a nice high budget wuxia film, and I loved it for...
I feel like I am the only one who liked the new Mulan. It's good precisely because it's not too much like the original; it feels a lot more like a nice high budget wuxia film, and I loved it for it.
Granted, I can completely understand why others didn't appreciate it the same way I did.
I got some wuxia vibes as well but it felt too much like only the MC was the only one with that added power and everyone else (besides the witch) was a regular human. I feel like if it was billed...
I got some wuxia vibes as well but it felt too much like only the MC was the only one with that added power and everyone else (besides the witch) was a regular human.
I feel like if it was billed as a separate Mulan adaptation and not a recreation of the Disney animated movie I'd have been more open to it and wouldn't have judged it the way I did.
I am not familiar with the source material but from reading that Wikipedia page it seems like the live action movie was based more on the 1997 movie rather than original Chinese folklore....
I am not familiar with the source material but from reading that Wikipedia page it seems like the live action movie was based more on the 1997 movie rather than original Chinese folklore. Regardless of that though, I believe the marketing around these modern Disney remakes was something akin to 'classics that you know and love brought to life like never before' which would imply that they're based on the 90s movies that everyone knows rather than original source material. Which is also why Disney locked some of these movies behind "The Vault" so that they could be re-released later when a live-action remake comes out.
Movies are allowed to be remade, of course. I just think it's weird when you have one remake that is nearly identical to the 90s movie, and then another remake that completely deviates from it.
I wonder if this is just a product of the time I grew up, where animation and graphics were completely unable to look realistic, so artist had to work with the technologies we had at the time,...
I wonder if this is just a product of the time I grew up, where animation and graphics were completely unable to look realistic, so artist had to work with the technologies we had at the time, which gave the animations their own unique charm and style. To me I love this, I don't need hyper realistic animations. In fact I prefer the more simplistic but stylistic animations of the originals. Don't get me wrong, the tech is incredible and it looks phenomenal. But I don't want to watch an entire movie of it. I'd rather look at the less impressive more stylistic approach like the originals. It just has a better feel like it's trying to be a movie and an actual story, rather than just an excuse to show off their new 3d rendering in a re-hashed story. The new ones give me uncanny valley vibes because they are trying to hard to be realistic, and it's off-putting.
If there were anyone trying to make 2D animation look realistic in the 90s, they were a minority by far. If you were to survey animation fans what the pinnacle of the art is, they'd probably point...
If there were anyone trying to make 2D animation look realistic in the 90s, they were a minority by far. If you were to survey animation fans what the pinnacle of the art is, they'd probably point to something like The Thief and the Cobbler, a film that is very intentionally surreal and unrealistic at all times.
When it comes to 3D animation, people are almost universally turned off by realistic human characters. If you look at photorealistic 3D animated movies there's a clear trend; they almost universally fail. One that comes to mind is Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, which nearly bankrupt the giant multinational corporation that produced it. Other famous flops include The Polar Express and Beowulf. The only place where photorealistic CG humans are accepted is in very short action segments in live-action movies (which is partially why I have become to love Patrick Willem's description of superhero movies being "cartoons for adults"), where things move so quickly you can easily miss the difference.
The Lion King remake is the highest grossing animated film of all time depending on how you count it. Are you surprised they’re going with the same approach when audiences at large loved the new...
The Lion King remake is the highest grossing animated film of all time depending on how you count it. Are you surprised they’re going with the same approach when audiences at large loved the new style? Even if it’s not my personal cup of tea, they’d be trolling to not do it.
The 2019 Lion King made over 1.6 billion dollars, so they were always going to keep the same style. I think this one is gonna have a The Marvel's problem though.
The 2019 Lion King made over 1.6 billion dollars, so they were always going to keep the same style. I think this one is gonna have a The Marvel's problem though.
The Marvels is a sequel to 2019’s Captain Marvel which made over a billion dollars. The Marvels made about 200 million world wide and was a huge bomb. I expect a similar drop off for this film.
The Marvels is a sequel to 2019’s Captain Marvel which made over a billion dollars. The Marvels made about 200 million world wide and was a huge bomb. I expect a similar drop off for this film.
The stars of The Marvels were not legally allowed to do any promotion for it in the months leading up to its release due to the actors' strike, which likely accounted for a big chunk of that drop off.
The stars of The Marvels were not legally allowed to do any promotion for it in the months leading up to its release due to the actors' strike, which likely accounted for a big chunk of that drop off.
Nah. That’s definitely an overstated effect, Five Nights at Freddy’s was able to gross more despite the same handicap. That one factor doesn’t explain a 900 million drop off. Its drop off is...
Nah. That’s definitely an overstated effect, Five Nights at Freddy’s was able to gross more despite the same handicap. That one factor doesn’t explain a 900 million drop off.
Its drop off is explained by its poor reception, general audience fatigue to the MCU, and the first Captain Marvel not being fondly remembered.
There's other things that contributed a lot to that fall off: two of the main characters in that movie required you to watch 2 TV shows to know who they are. One of those shows was advertised as...
There's other things that contributed a lot to that fall off:
two of the main characters in that movie required you to watch 2 TV shows to know who they are.
One of those shows was advertised as more of a young girl show, while the MCU as a whole is a much wider audience than that, so lots of people didn't see it and didn't know who Ms Marvel was.
The other show featured Monica as a tertiary character who's pretty forgettable compared to Wanda, Agitha, Vision, the boys, etc, and she hasn't had a solo outing yet. She's not really a household name and lots of people didn't know she existed before The Marvels came out.
Captain Marvel 1 released in between a 2-part Avengers movie, which made it seem like it was going to be an important lead-in to part 2, which it wasn't. Lots of people who normally wouldn't see a Captain Marvel standalone film probably saw it for that reason.
And The Marvels would have been able to overcome all or most of that if it had been compelling in its own right. By all accounts, it wasn't. (I still haven't seen it.) Which is very disappointing....
And The Marvels would have been able to overcome all or most of that if it had been compelling in its own right. By all accounts, it wasn't. (I still haven't seen it.)
Which is very disappointing. I want to see female-led superhero movies do well.
I haven't watched yet - life has me desperately behind on all movies - but all the women I've talked to about it really liked it. Hoping to get caught up over the summer
I haven't watched yet - life has me desperately behind on all movies - but all the women I've talked to about it really liked it. Hoping to get caught up over the summer
My sentiments exactly. I'm really upset whenever something starring women/people of color/LGBT has genuine flaws that were big and avoidable. It's especially bad when it's part of a series where...
Which is very disappointing. I want to see female-led superhero movies do well.
My sentiments exactly. I'm really upset whenever something starring women/people of color/LGBT has genuine flaws that were big and avoidable. It's especially bad when it's part of a series where the other entries are good, or at least serviceable, but they fucked up that one in particular.
They still made a lot of money on the remake, and they probably want to reuse all those 3D assets they created. Sadly, it appears to make good business sense.
They still made a lot of money on the remake, and they probably want to reuse all those 3D assets they created. Sadly, it appears to make good business sense.
I mean, more than just making a lot of money, which they did, it’s one of if not arguably the highest grossing animated movie of all time, a lot of people also liked it. Sometimes your subjective...
I mean, more than just making a lot of money, which they did, it’s one of if not arguably the highest grossing animated movie of all time, a lot of people also liked it. Sometimes your subjective preference moves out of step with the majority. It is what it is.
I don’t think it’s sad for other people to like things that you don’t.
It's really sad, though, that the "highest grossing animated movie" is one that everyone refers to as "live action", which would've been made in live action if possible, and exists to compliment...
It's really sad, though, that the "highest grossing animated movie" is one that everyone refers to as "live action", which would've been made in live action if possible, and exists to compliment Disney's live action catalogue. The film's success reminds me of recent musicals or two-parters which don't tell you they're musicals or two-parters on the tin, you find out after you're already watching it. Similarly, people went to see an animated movie, but they had to be lied to and think of it as a "live action" movie to actually go see it.
So this feels like adventures of the original Lion King characters in a different universe or something that allows them to go on different adventures without it affecting the original story, but...
So this feels like adventures of the original Lion King characters in a different universe or something that allows them to go on different adventures without it affecting the original story, but then it's actually just the previous generation doing shockingly similar things?
Like not a remake of the original, but a "rebuild" (to use the terminology the Evangelion movies used) where it's essentially the same characters but things are just a bit different so it goes in a new direction, but you get to see a lot of the same general plot points played out slightly differently. Like there's another "I Just Can't Wait to Be King" and there's another fight inside of dramatic flames and the situations are all familiar but not exactly the same.
Interesting. I recall people being very critical of the animation for the live action remake, so I'm genuinely surprised to see this. The premise seems like it could be good, but damn it, I miss 2d animation. You just don't get the same level of expression out of characters that look realistic.
My exact reaction upon seeing this was "Please be 2D animated....clicked link....fuck's sake".
I just don't get it. Some of the live-action remakes are interesting because it's cool to see how certain elements of the animated originals translate to live action. Like Genie's magic in Aladdin, the denizens of the castle in Beauty and the Beast, literally everything about Wonderland in Alice in Wonderland, etc. Or it's neat to see actors bring animated characters to life (all 3 of the aforementioned films and 101 Dalmatians comes to mind. And I'm kind of looking forward to Snow White and a few other upcoming ones).
But to just go from 2D animated to 3D animated just does absolutely nothing for me. I've already seen the movie and without anything new or personally interesting about it, I have no motivation to watch a remake. And there's the argument that "it's a kids movie!" but Disney's whole thing has always been that their stuff is appealing to everyone. And this and the first Lion King remake don't appeal to me at all.
That's almost the worst part. It is animated, but they decided to ignore the strongest feature of animation for non-human characters (the ability to better anthromorphize and exaggerate emotions) with their style. Imo, it ends up feeling uncanny.
I just hate how inconsistent they are with the songs. Like 90% of the magic of those classic Disney movies is the nostalgia, of course, and a big part of that nostalgia are the absolute bangers they produced. Under the Sea, I'll Make a Man Out of You, Circle of Life.... all instantly recognizable and tough not to sing along to.
They did a great job with the songs in some of the remakes, like Aladin, Little Mermaid, or Beauty and the Beast. They essentially kept all the original songs but then added a couple of new ones. Perfect (at least from a musical perspective). They should have done that with all of the remakes.
For the lion king remake, they ALMOST nailed it with the songs, but then they butchered the best song in the movie (Be Prepared). And then in Mulan they just straight up removed all the songs entirely! WTF! And they removed entire characters and then gave Mulan special powers. What's the point in remaking a story if you're changing major plot points (and removing one of the best songs Disney ever produced).
So you have some remakes that are nearly like-for-like copies of the original, maybe a couple of songs added in, and then you have the ones that completely try to remake the original and just annoy the fans who go in expecting it to be like the former but end up with a completely different movie.
Heck if they really want to change things rather than making like-for-like copies they could just do what they did for Maleficent or Cruella, where they tell a similar-but-different story from the point of view of another one of the characters (in these cases the villains of the originals). Which seems to be what they are doing with this Lion King movie. Fuck me I would KILL for a Hercules movie focusing purely on Hades.
Don't even know where I'm going at this point. Just rambling really. I'm just someone who really loves Disney songs and wish they wouldn't fuck with them so inconsistently.
Mulan was one of those movies I pirated to watch and afterwards told my wife I felt like it wasn't worth the time I wasted to watch it. I just couldn't believe they thought the movie was going to be a success.
Mulan was my wife's favorite Disney movie growing up and was incredibly popular in the state she grew up in (she's ethnically Chinese in the most ethnically Chinese state in her country). She said it felt like they tried to capitalize on the nostalgia but didn't try to capture anything that made the movie special.
I feel like I am the only one who liked the new Mulan. It's good precisely because it's not too much like the original; it feels a lot more like a nice high budget wuxia film, and I loved it for it.
Granted, I can completely understand why others didn't appreciate it the same way I did.
I got some wuxia vibes as well but it felt too much like only the MC was the only one with that added power and everyone else (besides the witch) was a regular human.
I feel like if it was billed as a separate Mulan adaptation and not a recreation of the Disney animated movie I'd have been more open to it and wouldn't have judged it the way I did.
Was the live-action Mulan meant to be a remake of the 1997 movie, or was it a new adaptation of the source material?
I am not familiar with the source material but from reading that Wikipedia page it seems like the live action movie was based more on the 1997 movie rather than original Chinese folklore. Regardless of that though, I believe the marketing around these modern Disney remakes was something akin to 'classics that you know and love brought to life like never before' which would imply that they're based on the 90s movies that everyone knows rather than original source material. Which is also why Disney locked some of these movies behind "The Vault" so that they could be re-released later when a live-action remake comes out.
Movies are allowed to be remade, of course. I just think it's weird when you have one remake that is nearly identical to the 90s movie, and then another remake that completely deviates from it.
I wonder if this is just a product of the time I grew up, where animation and graphics were completely unable to look realistic, so artist had to work with the technologies we had at the time, which gave the animations their own unique charm and style. To me I love this, I don't need hyper realistic animations. In fact I prefer the more simplistic but stylistic animations of the originals. Don't get me wrong, the tech is incredible and it looks phenomenal. But I don't want to watch an entire movie of it. I'd rather look at the less impressive more stylistic approach like the originals. It just has a better feel like it's trying to be a movie and an actual story, rather than just an excuse to show off their new 3d rendering in a re-hashed story. The new ones give me uncanny valley vibes because they are trying to hard to be realistic, and it's off-putting.
If there were anyone trying to make 2D animation look realistic in the 90s, they were a minority by far. If you were to survey animation fans what the pinnacle of the art is, they'd probably point to something like The Thief and the Cobbler, a film that is very intentionally surreal and unrealistic at all times.
When it comes to 3D animation, people are almost universally turned off by realistic human characters. If you look at photorealistic 3D animated movies there's a clear trend; they almost universally fail. One that comes to mind is Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, which nearly bankrupt the giant multinational corporation that produced it. Other famous flops include The Polar Express and Beowulf. The only place where photorealistic CG humans are accepted is in very short action segments in live-action movies (which is partially why I have become to love Patrick Willem's description of superhero movies being "cartoons for adults"), where things move so quickly you can easily miss the difference.
The Lion King remake is the highest grossing animated film of all time depending on how you count it. Are you surprised they’re going with the same approach when audiences at large loved the new style? Even if it’s not my personal cup of tea, they’d be trolling to not do it.
Give the people what they want and all.
The 2019 Lion King made over 1.6 billion dollars, so they were always going to keep the same style. I think this one is gonna have a The Marvel's problem though.
I'm out of the loop on Marvel movies, can you expand on that?
The Marvels is a sequel to 2019’s Captain Marvel which made over a billion dollars. The Marvels made about 200 million world wide and was a huge bomb. I expect a similar drop off for this film.
The stars of The Marvels were not legally allowed to do any promotion for it in the months leading up to its release due to the actors' strike, which likely accounted for a big chunk of that drop off.
Nah. That’s definitely an overstated effect, Five Nights at Freddy’s was able to gross more despite the same handicap. That one factor doesn’t explain a 900 million drop off.
Its drop off is explained by its poor reception, general audience fatigue to the MCU, and the first Captain Marvel not being fondly remembered.
There's other things that contributed a lot to that fall off:
And The Marvels would have been able to overcome all or most of that if it had been compelling in its own right. By all accounts, it wasn't. (I still haven't seen it.)
Which is very disappointing. I want to see female-led superhero movies do well.
I haven't watched yet - life has me desperately behind on all movies - but all the women I've talked to about it really liked it. Hoping to get caught up over the summer
My sentiments exactly. I'm really upset whenever something starring women/people of color/LGBT has genuine flaws that were big and avoidable. It's especially bad when it's part of a series where the other entries are good, or at least serviceable, but they fucked up that one in particular.
They still made a lot of money on the remake, and they probably want to reuse all those 3D assets they created. Sadly, it appears to make good business sense.
I mean, more than just making a lot of money, which they did, it’s one of if not arguably the highest grossing animated movie of all time, a lot of people also liked it. Sometimes your subjective preference moves out of step with the majority. It is what it is.
I don’t think it’s sad for other people to like things that you don’t.
It's really sad, though, that the "highest grossing animated movie" is one that everyone refers to as "live action", which would've been made in live action if possible, and exists to compliment Disney's live action catalogue. The film's success reminds me of recent musicals or two-parters which don't tell you they're musicals or two-parters on the tin, you find out after you're already watching it. Similarly, people went to see an animated movie, but they had to be lied to and think of it as a "live action" movie to actually go see it.
Maybe someone will get an AI to redraw it in 2D. I’m sure it’s possible.
So this feels like adventures of the original Lion King characters in a different universe or something that allows them to go on different adventures without it affecting the original story, but then it's actually just the previous generation doing shockingly similar things?
Like not a remake of the original, but a "rebuild" (to use the terminology the Evangelion movies used) where it's essentially the same characters but things are just a bit different so it goes in a new direction, but you get to see a lot of the same general plot points played out slightly differently. Like there's another "I Just Can't Wait to Be King" and there's another fight inside of dramatic flames and the situations are all familiar but not exactly the same.
Seems weird to me.
Am I making any sense?