The Lion King (2019)

X-SOLDIER

Harbinger O Great Justice
AKA
X
#55
I think that the thing that's most noticeable about those two scenes in particular is that it's framed the way that we film animals, not the way that we film people. In traditional animation, you're still framing and shooting everything like they're human characters even when they're not. This makes it feel a little off for the fact that there're voices we identify with characters coming from them without being familiar with them and we're still trying to attach the voices to faces, but we're not getting the typical establishing shots that are used to do that.

I'd expect the early film starting when they're smaller means that we'll be spending more time with lots of facial shots and being close to camera to get you used to the setting and the character being portrayed in the sort of photorealistic way that they are. This is especially assisted with Rafiki being a simian making his visuals easier for us to get used to reading expressions with the other creatures around him. That way, later on in the film when we have more and more of these types of shots where it feels a lot more like you're just out watching this scenario take place in the wild, it'll feel like it's a lot more natural, whereas in isolation they feel oddly detached.



X :neo:
 
AKA
Mr. Ite
#58
Critic reviews are super mixed (25%-85% apparently?) with detractors basically saying what Dashell said. Super wooden and inexpressive characters.

I will giver a download to see what VFX artists can do with photorealistic animals these days, which is more of a chance than I’m giving Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin, but I’m not expecting anything close to actually enjoying it (outside of the music).
 
Last edited:
AKA
Climhazzard
#62
Disclaimer: I have not seen the movie nor will I ever intend to see it, based on everything I have seen and read.

I'm stunned.

Stunned by how this movie is a technical masterpiece, but it just fails at nearly everything else: animation, expression, layout, composition, character design. Everything that is the basis for a good movie: JUST HOW.


Disney

how can you claim to be the best in the animation industry in terms of art, story, technology and have high standards for those you hire into your studios

and then churn out this...this product that basically ignores the basics and foundation of animation that you basically have established?!






I feel my very last brain cell quaking in anger, I should go before I mcfreaking lose it
 

ChipNoir

Internet Ghost
AKA
Mister Spooks.
#63
Disclaimer: I have not seen the movie nor will I ever intend to see it, based on everything I have seen and read.

I'm stunned.

Stunned by how this movie is a technical masterpiece, but it just fails at nearly everything else: animation, expression, layout, composition, character design. Everything that is the basis for a good movie: JUST HOW.


Disney

how can you claim to be the best in the animation industry in terms of art, story, technology and have high standards for those you hire into your studios

and then churn out this...this product that basically ignores the basics and foundation of animation that you basically have established?!






I feel my very last brain cell quaking in anger, I should go before I mcfreaking lose it
Welcome to how Bob Eiger wants to run things.

Almost makes me miss Katzenburg. Almost. If that idiot's still alive he's likely grinning ear to ear over this.
 

X-SOLDIER

Harbinger O Great Justice
AKA
X
#64
Disney how can you claim to be the best in the animation industry in terms of art, story, technology and have high standards for those you hire into your studios and then churn out this...this product that basically ignores the basics and foundation of animation that you basically have established?!
There's something really, REALLY important here that nobody's addressing – Disney has been incredibly specific about not referring to the film as an animation the way that they do with other properties. I think that it's because they have VERY INTENTIONALLY not set up this the way that they would with an animated film. It's clearly meant to be something different altogether.

Now, whether or not that lands with an audience, whether the close nostalgic connection to the expressiveness of animation pulls you out of that, I figure we'll have to see. I do think that it's deeply disingenuous to compare them directly when Jon Favreau has specifically stated:

“Well, it’s difficult because it’s neither [animation nor live-action], really. There are no real animals and there are no real cameras and...there’s not even any performance that’s being captured. But to say it’s animated, I think, is misleading as far as what the expectations might be, and it also changes the way you sit and watch it.”



X:neo:
 
#65
The animation aspect is not even the foundational issue here (though it is still an animation, I don't care what the horse's mouth says). There's a reason why expression is important in animation, but it has nothing to do with animation. The common denominator here is what appeals to the human audience.

If people in general in real life come across as wooden, be they actors in film or politicians, there is a certain unattractive quality to that. As humans, we're generally drawn to things and not to other things (oddly enough). Even domesticated animals (particularly dogs) developed human-like expressions via selection because it is what we're attracted to :p.

If you're saying this is some deeply layered intellectual art film that requires an awareness of various things to appreciate, and that we shouldn't be concentrating on the lack of expression evident but rather these other things (which very well may be true), it is going to bomb outside of the art gallery, I'm afraid, as most amazing works of art does :p. If it makes a profit, it'll only do so because of the popularity of the first film, like I imagine the other Disney remakes have all been doing.

If they're trying to make a wildlife documentary-type film, which are capable of certainly pulling my heart strings even though the animals don't have human expressions, what I'm seeing doesn't do anything for me at all.

The technology making it might be astounding and cutting edge, but as with any AAA game that is all graphics and little substance, I'm afraid I would rather watch pixelated stick figures on a Commodore 64 with a lot of substance.
 
AKA
The Engineer
#66
Telling a fundamentally human story (The Lion King is basically Shakespeare's Hamlet with a happy ending) with non-human characters without making the characters have something relatedly human about how those characters act (body language, facial expressions) usually doesn't work well. Things like nature documentaries work because the "story" (if there is one) is written around what the animals do. As in, they aren't treated as a stand-in for humans usually. Here that order is being reversed, and it really feels like Disney kinda forgot who they were making the movie for. If this same idea in terms of presentation was to come out of a different movie house, then it would probably be getting a lot less flak.

I think it says something that I am looking forwards more to a Lindsay Ellis video about this movie then the actual movie itself...
 
AKA
TresDias
#67
Obsidian and Ghost really called the spade what it is. The technology may be impressive, but as a movie, the feature needs to be about more than that for all but very specific audiences -- even those of us who can appreciate the achievement from an intellectual angle are going to dump on the movie if it fails to entertain us the way the film it's remaking did.

I know it may seem like there's a logical disconnect between being able to appreciate the expressiveness of FFVII's polygonal characters -- or even the sprites of an older FF -- while finding this emotionally dead ... but there's some kind of curve graph or something that needs to be mapped out here to depict the idea that "The closer animation approaches to real life, the less willing the subconscious of an audience expecting entertainment becomes to accepting a lack of overtly communicable expression."

We praise what developers did with sprites and polygons because they were able to communicate a lot with a little. Communicating less with a lot more then becomes fundamentally unacceptable.

This isn't a conscious endeavor by the viewership. It's simply what our brains are wired to do.

If a human being -- or a character in, say, FFXIII -- offered as little expression as what comes across here, they would be critiqued harshly, and rightly so. Hell, look at "The Spirits Within": even with a combo of amazing tech and effectively human expressions, it still gets pinged on just plainly failing to meet a threshold that would entertain most viewers.

Now, if this very-much-still-animated remake is part of some elaborate artistic experiment to somehow begin rewiring the human brain ... well, good luck, movie. You probably aren't going to be remembered as a success.

The animators are not going to change the way we "sit and watch it" just because there were no cameras or pencils used to make it, and there's nothing disingenuous about that.

A moviegoer still expects to feel entertained and needs -- often subconsciously -- certain things to get there. Selectively neglecting to remind folks that this is an animated feature may provide a more forgiving threshold for some expectations, but it still won't guarantee audience members judge this as favorably as the original.

At best, viewers who think these are real animals may say "That's impressive the things they got those lions to do for the camera. I still prefer the original, though, because of the faces."
 

looneymoon

hedgehog pandacat
AKA
Rishi
#68
I want to say I don't understand what Disney's intent here, but it's pretty obvious... and simple. Let's be real, animation itself has been a pretty niche genre for western audiences for... a very long time. Disney is aware and a large part responsible for this. They're essentially really trying to forcefully explore the Dark Gritty Edgelord angle for all these stories that don't benefit at all from that point of view.

The more thoughtless audience is probably still gonna still have the "well the CGI was good!" take from shit like this. My only hope is that, with the growing sentiment of the cartoon version being better, it will spur general audiences into re-assessing how they value the old medium. With things like Spider-verse getting so much praise, I think that might be possible, although perhaps too hopeful :/
 

ChipNoir

Internet Ghost
AKA
Mister Spooks.
#69
They need to do The Black Cauldron. It fits the motif that Looney described perfectly. It has absolutely no mainstream fandom, because Katzenburg buried it under 500 floors of cement. They could turn one of their worst failures into an absolute win by getting that Chosen One narrative that they've been itching to claim but never quite got their hands on for the past decade and a half.
 
Top Bottom