Lion King 0.2 · 12:45pm Jul 16th, 2019
EDIT: The movie made $23 million Thursday night... sigh... and so Disney is going to keep pumping out these cash grabs because no one has learned their lesson yet. People are addicted to nostalgia, even when it's just a pale copy of the original.
Yes, the title of my blog is a prod at the typical X-title 2.0, indicating a second version of something.
Only, this movie feels like a fraction of the original, hence the decimal!
Remember the DISMALLY LAZY shot-for-shot remake of "Psycho" in 1998? Yeah, expect the same. It's uninspired, does NOTHING with the glossy new CGI to set this story apart. The creators seemed utterly oblivious to the fact that talking 'real-life' animals instantly look more phony than even Cal-Arts-level drawing styles. MOST ANIMALS CANNOT CONVEY FACIAL EXPRESSION!!! And it looks ridiculous when these stone-faced creatures are trying to do a Darth Vader "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!". Imagine if MLP: FiM used ACTUAL HORSE FACES (which people have done in some small parodies to emphasize how terrible that actually looks). It works about as well as you'd expect.
This pale, faded copy of the penultimate Disney classic cuts out or abbreviates some of the most iconic moments of the movie, the songs feel lifeless since everything looks bland and nothing 'cartoony' can be done with everything so stupidly hyper-realistic. It loses the passion, the emotion, the drama, and the gravitas of so many wonderful scenes VASTLY better suited to traditional animation. Hell, even the Broadway show new how important style was to the story (hence all the Tony Awards and years of run-time).
This is the epitome of over-reliance of tech over art. The Borg might as well have remade it in their image, as the only difference is it would probably be all grey.
I can only hope this bombs as hard as the aforementioned "Psycho" remake and perhaps force Disney to quit being so damned lazy with... absolutely everything they do these days.
Astoundingly, it seems Disney has run out of money to buy off critics, and it's only managing a meager 60% positive on Rotten Tomatoes (and many of the 'positive' reviews are a middling 2/4 or 3/5, and are very critical of every aspect save the photo-realism). And on IMDB, I'm catching some of the early screening reviews and some foreign markets... and the results are not good. The foreign markets especially don't give a damn about our politics or Disney shills or anything other than did they like the movie... and they really don't. Taking out the vapid 10/10 and exceedingly harsh 1/10... the movie's averaging about a 6.2/10. For an audience score of a major Disney release, that's DISMAL.
For perspective, the lousy "Dumbo" remake that flopped... scored a 6.4/10 with audiences. Compare this to the new "Aladdin", which received a 7.4/10, despite overall middling actual audience reviews.
I don't know how much nostalgia's going to work this time. Audiences have been hammered with so many remakes in a row, and this is one of the laziest cash-grabs of them all. From all the millions of old fans of the original, all I'm hearing is 'ugh'. No doubt it'll be #1 this weekend, since there's nothing else at all coming out (too bad, it could have used competition from something better), but I think it'll fade quickly, as no one at all seems interested in a repeat viewing.
As a final note: I'd love to know how frantic their merchandising department is right now. How in the hell do they expect kids to want to snatch up overprices junk with images of dull-looking, expressionless animals all over it? The parents can just go to a random toy store, pick out a cheap plastic lion and call it Simba (spending less than 1/3 the price, most likely) and the dumb kid won't know the difference!
This was just a bad idea from every possible perspective.
As one particularly clever critic paraphrased Jeff Goldblum "The creators of the "Lion King" remake were so caught up in the idea of if they could create a photo-realistic version of the film, they never stopped to think if they should." They spared no expense, but clearly didn't think the idea through at all.
At least they arnt illumination
5089505 Disney appears to be following Illumination's business model recently.
5089526
Only pixar can save us now
The fact that they're going for Best Visual Effects instead of Best Animated Feature says a lot, though. The intention is to do what they've been trying to do since Tron: kill the idea of live action by making everything in CGI good enough that you can't tell the difference. That even the critics at their most critical are mistakenly referring to it as a live-action movie means that this movie succeeded at what it was trying to do regardless of how badly it flops.
5089534 There's a HUGE problem looming that they don't comprehend: audiences will quickly become apathetic to the perfect CGI. They'll begin to detract for any imperfections and not give any credit whatsoever for what they now take for granted.
It won't take long, either. When there's no artistic quality and no story, audiences eventually get bored and move on. We've seen that with a number of effects-heavy properties that finally fizzled when the story and art merits failed to deliver time after time.
And, when the market is utterly saturated, audiences become even more picky than ever. They're setting themselves up for collapse.
And I really hope they don't figure it out until it's too late. Then The Plan will be one step closer to completion!
5089646
Sadly, we live in a world where starting with enough money means that nobody can ever take it from you. See: Trump, who didn't have to pay a dime any of the multiple times he's filed for bankruptcy (learning this was the first time I found out that you could file for bankruptcy more than once), and was also allowed to keep the presidency after openly stating that he cheats on his taxes and then refusing to release the records that would prove it. (Why do they even need proof when they have a confession? They don't, they're just going out of their way to not have to oust him. Given that Pence is just as evil but an actual politician, this is probably a good thing)
5089656 He didn't cheat on his taxes. His holdings were mostly in real estate, which had depreciated during the earlier housing crash (2008 was NOT the first big one) to the point where his net worth was negative. However, once the boom hit, his properties exploded in value.
He simply played the financial game better than anyone else and used the laws to his advantage.
If ya don't like it... well, maybe next time none of that 'too big to fail' stuff, eh? Don't see you complaining about Obama bailing out the banks which caused the 2008 crash and holding NONE of them accountable when Dems held all the power in the Executive and Legislative branches for 2 years.
Sucks that I remember details, doesn't it?
5089664
"Too big to fail" never succeeds, and only having one example off the top of my head doesn't mean I don't condemn the other side doing exactly the same thing. Actually, let's not pretend that there are two sides; the differences have eroded so far that horseshoe theory alone no longer suffices.
Studios need to realize they can't just rehash the same product over and over with a new coat of paint. Disney lost its innovation long ago and now they just sit around copying ideas from themselves! It's like they've realized they can't make a profit on crappy sequels so they decided to just literally do the same thing over again!
5089675 There is most definitely a radical left. Fortunately, they're as stupid as they are violent.
5089681 They need to start 'adapting' ideas again... like they did with Kimba... I-I mean, 'Simba'... >____>
"The Simpsons" picked up on the similarity wayyy back in the 90's... back when it was still a funny show.
5089836
True, but at least having the insight to realize someone else has a good idea for a movie and then stealing it requires more moxie and craft skill then just rehashing the exact same movie again.
TBH Disney would likely make more profit and get better reviews, just showing 'remastered' theater screenings of animated classics.
5089835
the problem is that its much easier to define things as radical in the right then in the left. Okay, so conservatives and right wingers are easy: racism. Racism is an ugly stupid idea and they've tried to purge the notion from their ranks. The denounce and repudiate with avengence, and your ass will be cut off and cast away if you are one.
The left... not so easy. Now, they're just as racist. Its just hidden under compassion and concern and feelings. So long as you follow one of those three, you can be and act as reprehensible as you like.
5089836
At least no one ever over sexualized a fucking anime lion...
Honestly, whats wrong with you furries. I mean, Christ the bubbly baby in a powder blue pram, how the hell would get turned on by...
Its like they know you people
i.imgur.com/VePq5ey.jpg
5090030
I'm pretty sure Disney signed a demonic pact with some furry demon lord considering every few years they make some new movie that tempts people down that road.
The lioness giving 'do-me' eyes is only the tip of the iceberg.
5090059
Wait... Oh God... Princess and the Frog...
<one checking later>
5090030 [quoteAt least no one ever over sexualized a fucking anime lion...]It amuses me that you believe that.
While I could point out many examples... I think I'll wait for the "Beastars" anime this fall. Oh the furry fan stuff that's going to come out around that! If you think the reaction to "Zootopia" was crazy, woo-boy! The manga is practically a furry fanfic of Zootopia in the first place!
5090059 There were some Disney animators opening in the furry fandom some years ago. And we had Floyd Norman as a Guest of Honor a while back.
Oddly enough, we also have hyper-conservative, gun-toting furverts as well who get into flame wars with the ultra-left blue-haired land whales in the fandom. Figure that one out!
It's MADNESS, I tell you! SHEESH MADNESS!!
And I find it delightful.
Apparently it's up to $243m domestic.
I'm totally in the same boat as you. I was interested in the concept until I saw the trailer, and it looked like ass. I'll grant, if you took a still frame of probably any shot in the movie, it would look amazing. But it's not a photo album, it's a motion picture. And it's competing with an animated version. Key word being 'animated.' Not even so much the medium, but more the other definition of 'animated,' that is, being lively, etc, etc. In the original film, it was lively and emotional, and it was that visually. Now I look at this turd Disney squeezed out, and it's like watching paper cut-outs trying to act. My dog can emote more via facial expression than these CGI animals can. It's sad.
5093749 Well, we have to remember that James Cameron's "Avatar" (a film that now tops every list of 'Most Overrated Film') was only just bumped off the top-grossing spot by "Avengers: Endgame".
And look at all the awful "Transformers" films which made over a billion worldwide.
Sadly, box office does not reflect film quality in the least. Audiences are fickle herd animals.
Just look at this list of terrible movies that grossed over a billion (from Box Office Mojo's all-time gross lists) Many of them are parts of pop culture franchises with powerful nostalgia appeal and marketability.
1. Jurassic World ($1.67 billion)
2. Star Wars: The Last Jedi ($1.3 billion)
3. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom ($1.3 billion)
4. Minions ($1.15 billion)
5. Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon ($1.1 billion)
6. Transformers: Age of Extinction... my god that was horrible ($1.1 billion)
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and Stranger Tides (each just over $1 billion)
And others which breached the billion dollar mark that sucked
Star Wars The Phantom Menace
2010 Alice in Wonderland
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Despicable Me 3
And then we have Finding Dory, which was just a weaker carbon copy of Finding Nemo... and grossed nearly $100 million more than the original.
Meanwhile, many truly amazing films never even make it close to a billion.
Neither of the wonderful "Guardians of the Galaxy" movies made it close to a billion.
"X-Men: Days of Future Past", which in many MANY fans minds is overwhelmingly the best X-Men movie ever made... only $747 million, while "Suicide Squad" and "Madagascar 3" dreadful for the first, dull for the second... only made a million dollars less than that.
"Captain America: Winter Soldier", a fantastic film far more grounded than most of the Marvel movies, made about the same as the abysmal "Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn", which even many people involved in making it admitted they hated afterward.
The lackluster CGI animated "Sing" made slightly more money than the VASTLY superior "Kung Fu Panda" and "The Incredibles", all in the same film genre.
So, if we wonder why Hollywood keeps bombarding us with crap, we only have the disjointed psychology of the audiences to blame. Hollywood's never going to try until true effort is consistently rewarded while garbage is panned.
5093749 One thing I'm noticing with "The Lion King", though, is the foreign box office looks like it's slowing rapidly. At the first opening, foreign markets made up 72% of the total gross. Now it's down just under 60%. The foreign numbers are now only rising very slowly, even in China, where it opened on July 12th, has not yet passed $100 million.
So it looks like foreign audiences, drawn in by the hype, have quickly realized it's disappointing.
That said, expect it to top the US charts again this week, as the only competition is the Tarantino film, which is specifically aimed at older audiences and kids have nothing but "The Lion King". Seriously, there is ZERO competition... which is why we have to stop Disney from having so much control over release schedules.
5093930 Well, yeah, definitely the way the film industry works and makes profit in general is disjointed. Nostalgia is rewarded simply because lots of people go see the film. Same for kids' movies. And then throw into the mix, what time of year it is, what other films it's competing with (if any), and how effective their advertising was. It's a complicated game, but I know that the people making big movies are not sitting around scratching their heads, they KNOW most of the variables. Films are often delayed or rushed to fit in a particular time of year, or to avoid competing with another film, etc. So Hollywood knows how to play the game. That doesn't mean they always win, though, but they often do.
But also, you're saying certain films are 'bad,' but there are many different types of 'bad,' and not all of those are bad. The Transformers movies, for example, yeah from an artistic point of view they're bad. But they were meant to be that way, they're popcorn flicks, they're not works of art, they're just meant to have enjoyable action and keep your attention for the moment and not be deep or moving or beautiful or anything like that.
5094242 But I don't find the "Transformers" movies enjoyable. I find them mind-achingly stupid. The first was Ok, and gave false hope. The second was dreadful, and I gave up halfway through the 3rd.
5095636 That's ok, nobody said you gotta like them.
I quite liked it!
5100688 If you like emotionless robots with no facial expression, ok then.
Have you even seen the original?
5100710 Oui oui, I liked it too!
5100710
Their avatar certainly checks out, if so. >_>
Torrents and discount DVD's my son!
That's the solution for parents to teach their offspring the good stuff!