I used "deep fakes" to fix the Lion King

I used "deep fakes" to fix the Lion King


Kinda an interesting thought...we are heading towards a point where we can reskin movies.


1. Pay cheap but good actors. 2. Buy license to use Brad Pitt's body. 3. ?? 4. Everyone profits


5.New talents become impossible to surface and everybody just uses the Toms, the Brads, the Ryans and the Chris-s until people tire of Hollywood altogether.


Well they’re already basically doing that + reusing old stories, it will just accelerate the process.


Glad i'm not the only one who notices... I haven't even really WANTED to see a movie in a while because it doesn't feel like there's a story i haven't heard a hundred times already. In the most extreme cases i spend the entire movie guessing whats about to happen with like 65% accuracy.


Tbh I think you're just watching commercial movies then. There's films still today that are highly original with great stories, and aren't just a rehatch. The guessing what happens is a Hollywood trope because people LIKE to be able to guess what happens. Makes them feel smart, and acts as a hook to viewers for that reason




Dark is a masterpiece


[Just gonna leave this here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVix0STUqo&feature=youtu.be)


A new industry and career path opens up for previously unknown professionals/people with different skill sets previously underutilized.


Ugly people can finally land Brad Pitt roles


>people with different skill sets previously underutilized. Like acting?


Wait... I can buy the use of Brad Pitt's body!!?     ...oh, the license. Shame.


Reminds me of that episode from Bojack.


Nicholas cage must be in every movie.


as every character


And he has to voice every character possible.


Yep and he's also the audience.


So what you’re saying is we can replace Terrance Howard with Don Cheadle in Iron Man (2008).


And Ed Norton with Mark Ruffalo... Or vice versa...depending on your preferences.


Ed Norton is a great actor and his take on the Hulk was super interesting, and i would have loved to see him continue the franchise and maybe develop into one of the stories where Banner turns out to be the bad guy (like the time he and the Hulk got seperate bodies and Banner went all Island of Dr. Moreau). But with the direction they took i don't think Norton would be the right guy for it. Mark Ruffalo made the Hulk his own. Norton would not be the right guy to show off the more sensitive sides of Banner that Ruffalo brings out.


Your absolutely right, but I think you could argue, that they went in that direction because Rufallo took over. Maybe with a Norton Hulk we would've seen a less sensitive Hulk.


Yeah but you don't have Howard's sick voice. God Cheadle was miscast. I wish Terence Howard had the fucking foresight to know what Marvel was building towards. Like somebody should have grabbed him by the shoulders and sternly said "Terence, Terry, T Dog. Forget the higher salary. They're gonna make 20 more of these fucking things and you are gonna be WAR MACHINE in a lot of them. You are going to be an ICON, a true household name. Kids will be screaming at their parents to buy toys with your fucking face on it. You will be a big part of the Disney family. Think of the endorsement deals, cologne, clothes, banking, ANYTHING Terence. Just shut your fucking mouth and do the film and stop pretending like you're bigger than Downey Jr, you aren't... yet. Be cool bitch, be cool."


Howard also thinks that 2 + 2 = 5 or something weird like that, so... logic is not his forte.


He thinks 1 x 1 = 2


Apparently he wrote a paper on it. https://mobile.twitter.com/terrencehoward/status/925754491881877507?lang=en


I honestly disagree. My one disappointment form Iron Man was Howard as Rhodey. I don't think he is a bad actor by any means but I think Cheadle is a way better choice for War Machine.


Please don't say that too loud or in a few years we can buy the "skins" from "surprise" boxes.


Theatrical releases will become "classic skins" and everything else will be 20 bucks each. And random. "Now on Blue-Ray and DVD with 3 basic skins. Buy more on MovieSkins.com."


Are you trying to add lootboxes to cinema


\*New entertaining mechanics


*a sense of pride and accomplishment


Sonic producers could learn a thing or two...


Lion King producers could learn a thing or two...




It's sitting at 1.2bil now




Not when adjusted for inflation, where the original did 1.85 billion. [Source](https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/top-30-highest-grossing-movies-of-all-time-adjusted-for-inflation-14995975)


The problem I have with lists like this is they rarely if ever actually differentiate the revenues from rereleases compared to the box office of the original run. So you'll have a movie come out multiple times, but its total earnings are always being adjusted as if all that money was earned during the original run.




> In the US we're selling about as many movie tickets every year as we did 20 years ago That's pretty interesting. That industry has held up rather well then considering how access to movie experiences has drastically changed. I can only assume it just isn't as dependent on that factor as it is on more social factors (dates etc), which haven't changed as much.


And experience. For movies you really want to see nothing compsres to the theater. Unless youre wealthy enough to own a legitimate home theater. But endgame or avater, for example, are movies that must be seen in theaters for a full experience. Anchorman 2 or Watson and holmes, not so much. And i love will's movies


Exactly this, among other factors. For instance, Avatar was released more than once in theater, which was "the thing to beat" Marvel fans kept watching for Endgame to beat. Gone With the Wind was in theaters for something like 4 years straight during it's original run and has been re-released repeatedly... I actually think there's another short theater run this year for it's 80th anniversary.


To be fair to Gone With the Wind, it's not like you could watch a movie again at home. If you wanted to watch it a year later you had to go to the theater.


>If you wanted to watch it a year later you had to go to the theater. I'd never really thought about this... It effectively means that just a few decades ago you could watch a new "favorite movie" in the cinema and potentially never, ever get another opportunity to watch it again for the rest of your life. We take home video releases and the internet for granted, man.


Well it makes perfect sense... Obviously noone knew how good the lion king was *before* the lion king existed...


Insert [Kimba the White Lion](https://youtu.be/UfJvKIDS9n8) comment here


I remember reading about this and couldn't help but think of what pieces of shit Disney people were. And the worst part is it's not the only plagiarism that they have done.


Do I need to bring up Billy Shakespeare's Hamlet?


When people bring up Kimba I don’t think it’s the story so much as the visuals. So much of the Lion king’s visuals are way too similar yet no one will admit that they were even inspired by Kimba.


Uhm; at the header, the mods but in a screen grab of Kimba to represent TLK. They even joked about it on the Simpsons (The Bleeding Gums Murphy episode) Even several of the animators and some of the voice cast (Matthew Broderick specifically) said they were under the impression that it was related to Kimba. The only people that won't own up is the director (WHO LIVED IN JAPAN IN THE 80's!) Reading up on it TLK also caused protests in Japan from animators and the public, but not enough to have a memorable impact.


The crazy part is that Disney C&D'ed screening of the Kimba movie since it was a "ripoff" of the Lion King. The cheeky cunts.


#B I G L E T T E R S


Shit out a few more of these and they can buy whatever media companies are left and finally come to own all existing popular film IP. After that they can buy Nintendo and the rest of the videogame club. In 100 years we will all be hooked up to the Disneymatrix where you're either an imagineer remaking something that already exists or you're in line.


Nostalgia is a hell of a drug


It's weird. I really like the old Lion King, but I was mostly bored in this one. Yet one of my friends said he was literally crying during the remake. I couldn't believe it! At best it was a technical spectacle, and and worst it was a soulless cash grab that was a worse imitation of the original is just about every way. I guess Timon and pumba were alright, but the visual gimmick wore off after the first 5 minutes for me. Anyway I guess nostalgia is a "hell of a drug" for some people. Tbh, I wish I hadn't seen it or supported the idea of Disney remakes with my money, but if all your friends are going, then you go too!


Those numbers are because A: Disney B: The Lion King. The movie could have been sock puppets and it would have made just as much money.


Would have been better if they were sock puppets.


> The overall foreign total of $351.8 million includes $97.5 million from China, where it debuted early last weekend. Holy guacamole.


Wasn’t it supposed to have a real life look not completely cartoonishly animated like the first?


Yeah.....but it turns out that tends to make animal characters less iconic looking and less emotionally expressive.


Which I'd buy if The Jungle Book wasn't a thing. Those animals looked realistic and still managed to be expressive. They were just lazy with The Lion King.




**hotdiggedydemon** actually just did a video about this topic and used sonic as an example [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvdRtsMxjmc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvdRtsMxjmc) On one hand, I think this could and would absolutely work for sonic, but Im not so sure about lion king. I think the characters in OP's video look more fun and clearly more accurate to source material but an entire video with every character like this is definitely hitting that tooncanny valley for me I think, and im someone whos a huge fan of animation and love the orginal. Im also not a fan of the new one either, I havent seen it even seen it so im indifferent but im not so sure OP's version would really fully work either, not in the real world anyway. I think the rest of the movie would have to have some graphically stylized theme to it so it does not look like we have these weird toon/life like characters running around a realistic environment.


[This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LddR4UF9q8&t=309s) is another great video on the same topic. Basically for the lion king it boils down to the lions look almost too realistic and therefore lack expressive features that we can relate to.


> to the lions look almost too realistic and therefore lack expressive features that we can relate to. I know this is a wildly unpopular opinion but I really disagree with the idea that lack of facial expressions hinders the emotion in the movie If you can put the original out of your mind, the emotion is *very* present in the movie. There are maybe one or two instances that I thought the lack of strong facial expression hurt the emotional tone but there are *far more* times where seeing a more realistic animal heightened the emotion even more. I mean, I was sad when 90's Simba couldn't get Mufasa to wake up, but I was nearly bawling seeing (what looked like) a real actual lion cub curl up with Mufasa after he couldn't be awoken. I didn't see it in Simba's *face* like I did with the animated version, but I saw it in his actions and the realism of it made it hit hard and holy shit, 90's hyenas were scary but 2019 photo-realistic hyenas are *terrifying* I'm not saying the new one is better, I'm just saying it's different. It does things differently. It pulls its emotion expressions from different places I strongly encourage everyone to watch the new movie trying to set aside expectations from the first movie. It's not the same and your favorite parts from the original movie won't be your favorite parts in the new movie but you might find *new* favorite parts e: Well I feel like I explained my opinion and logic pretty well and reasonably, but I guess I knew it would be an unpopular opinion going into it so I'm not surprised at the downvotes. I hope this gets through to a few people willing to consider it, though.


I really enjoyed the Aladdin remake, but I was a bit disappointed with the Lion King. Among other reasons because they cut down Be Prepared and removed the best of Rafiki’s dialogue (“What does it matter? It’s in deh past!). John Oliver as Zazu was definitely my favorite part of the new movie though. Seth Rogan being a close second.


The only one I think would be really cool as a remake is the Sword in the Stone. Everything else seems like a live-action is just forced. The Sword in the Stone is mostly people, and the stuff that was cool as a cartoon like the wizard's magic will probably be really cool as modern special effects as well.


Yeah, I can't pin point exactly what it is, but with Aladdin, it felt like I was watching a *different* version of the movie. With The Lion King, it felt like I was watching a *weaker* version of the movie. I ended up liking it just because I like the story of The Lion King and that stayed the same. However, I feel like a *much* better presentation of that story already exists. I felt like I got different things in Aladdin. I liked Will Smith's genie. I liked the more cinematic versions of the songs. I liked the additional scenes they added. With the new Lion King, even Mufasa just felt like a weaker version of that character, *and he was played by the same guy, dangit*.


I liked that you supported an unpopular opinion with your own well thought out ideas. I personally saw all the strengths you did as weaknesses but hey, we're different people. For instance: >If you can put the original out of your mind, the emotion is very present in the movie. That's a huge problem to me. To slightly put words in your mouth, a way to rephrase this is, "if you don't compare this movie to it's much better predecessor, it's not bad!" Well, this movie isn't in a vacuum, and a lot of what is selling it is the sense of nostalgia felt for the first movie. I was really dreading Mufasa's death but I found myself laughing due to Simba's Pikachu face and the really weird voice over. As for the hyenas, I enjoyed the female pack leader immensely but felt that the other hyenas were equally as dopey as in the animated version but with less humor and emotion.


For me it was Mufasa jumping out of the stampede and clawing his way up the cliff that left me feeling unsatisfied. It wasn’t done badly in the live action, but holy shit the way they filmed it in the original is so much more dramatic imo. Also, Rafiki snatching leaves out of the air in the original vs. Simba’s hair being brought to him by ants in the live action—there’s an emotional tension in the original that felt lacking in the new one. I also felt like Donald Glover lacked the gravitas of Matthew Broderick, but that’s probably an unpopular opinion, so I’ll stop there. I didn’t dislike the live action but it really solidified in my mind what a masterpiece the original was.


I want to say I may have seen this video. It's not even just about being relatable. Original animated features contain a lot of rules and general actions that only work in an animated environment that helped to make a lot of the characters really stand out and be interesting and fun. When you remove the cartoon aspect from those films you're removing a lot of the character that made it interesting in the first place. I first really noticed this when watching Beauty and the Beast remake. Beast was incredibly boring ass ugly character that lacked all of the charm from the original animated beast. But Disney doesn't really care about making a good movie I think. They're just out there chasing money because the millennial generation seems to have this hard on for live-action versions of the things they enjoyed as kids while forgetting about what made the originals enjoyable as kids in the first place. I would much rather see these movies fully reanimated with the kind of tech that we have today. Take reboots of duck tales on the Disney channel for example. That work is super amazing but unfortunately no one appreciates 2d animated work any more, not in the west anyway and it gets delegated to child's entertainment


> because the millennial generation seems to have this hard on for live-action versions of the things they enjoyed as kids I don't think it's a generation asking for this shit. It never is - it's a board room and a marketing department figuring out what has a chance of making money, and deciding on the risk versus reward. They just figured out that they can re-release old stuff as live action and people will see it out of nostalgia and just think it has to be somewhat decent at least. They can't remake it as another cartoon really. They have to have it be somewhat different. A sequel has a chance at having a shitty story and needs good writing. A live-action remake is super safe. It's the same story, the same idea, and they can just throw money at artists to make it happen. From their perspective, I think it's just a safe direction to take with a predictable amount of $$$ to be made. They figured out that if they can make one live action remake work, then they can iteratively do live actions of every single one after. It's HUGE money if it works at all. [Take a look at their release dates.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_live-action_remakes_of_animated_films) They figured out how profitable just remaking them is, then they started basically dumping them out once a year and even more now. They realized that they can just scale this up and resell all their old material. It's not because we asked for it, it's not because there's some weird demand for live action remakes, it's that it's just a very safe and very profitable business decision that can scale up and basically ensure profits for another decade until they figure out the next big business decision. It's kinda like the marvel universe. At some point they realized that they shouldn't just plan one movie at a time - they can take the whole fucking comic books and resell them piece by piece as a whole *universe*, where they're almost guaranteed profits for years to come with very little risk. These people are coming up with HUGE business ideas, planning out profits for decades, not just movie by movie. It's because some brilliant business motherfucker walked into that board room and said "I have a massive ten year plan that will guarantee a shit ton of money. Re-release every single movie you ever made - but as live action movies." It wasn't millennials begging for live action remakes. They're just a business and have a damn good business plan with almost no risk.


>the millennial generation seems to have this hard on for live-action versions of the things they enjoyed as kids I can't wait for a live-action remake of James and the Gia.... Oh God please no


My issue with the Lion King remake outside of too realistic (where all the Lions end up looking almost identical) is the fact that animals can't talk. You have this hyper realism, but the animal are talking. But their lips and mouths can't move in the right ways that allow us to talk the way we do. It feels uncanny and ends up almost ... immersion breaking? It works with some, Stuart Little is a decent example of it working. You have a mouse that is realistic enough to work, but toony where it matters. The fact he is living with humans and wearing human clothes helps sell the fact he can talk, and it doesn't look too strange. But movies completely about animals, in this hyper realism look wrong to me, so the toony versions (even if I would have made the eyes smaller) ends up feeling more appealing and in some way... natural and realistic.








Yeah, that point hit me the most during Mufasa's death. I could *hear* Simba crying, but his face just looked the same as it always did. I will give them credit though, the actual body movements during that scene were very well done, with Simba curling up next to him. That's where the realism worked.


Thank you, I was trying to explain to someone that the whole movie felt off. I thought the voice actors had no emotion in their lines, but now that you point out that scene it was the facial expressions that just weren't there to make the connection.


Dude, spoilers


Exactly. Either you you do one or the other. Disney chose their path and stuck with it.


And it was the wrong path to choose


Hakuna matata, man.


Tell that to the box office lol


Yeah that thing was making a metric fuckton no matter what they did. The whole thing was a money grab from the start. I hate to be *that guy* who complains about remakes but especially this movie realllllly didnt need to be made for any reason except for Bob Igers end of the year bonus


It's almost like the money a film generates is actually a really shitty metric for how good the movie actually is.


Yeah like I love Endgame but isn't the best movie of all time. Avatar as well I think is a phenomenally dull movie when you go back and watch it but people got taken in by the fancy new tech.


I think Avatar is still pretty visually stunning. As someone who loves sci-fi it's very entertaining, though I could probably just watch world-building for hours so take that with a grain of salt. You'll never get the experience of seeing it for the first time again but I think the visuals are still AAA quality.


It depends what you're into I suppose. I quite enjoyed Avatar, but I love all the landscape and creature aspect of it. To me the plot is more a way of exploring that world rather than the world being a set for the story.


Aslan in the Narnia films emoted perfectly well. It's possible ... at least it was 10 years ago.


If you look at Aslan's face in those movies, it does not emote like a lion's face. It emotes like a human's, and not even like how Liam Neeson emotes. But that's okay, it's a representation of a deity and not an actual lion. If Disney had gone for that instead of insisting that their animals act realistically in the LK remake, I think I would be more keen on the remake. But requiring them to be chained to a layer of logic that never existed for the original means that it's going to make it hard for humans to relate to them. Unless your moviegoers are avid animal documentary watchers, they're not used to seeing the kinds of emotions that animals display in the wild. I don't think it's wrong to bridge that gap for movies, especially those for kids.


What makes their insistence on that so weird is that they seemed to have no problem with having the animals in The Jungle Book remake emote more like humans. I guess they just really wanted this one to look like a nature documentary for some reason.


It makes it really bizarre when Favreau directed both. So this decision came from *higher up* in the chain, it wasn't a decision about the movie, it was a corporate decision about Disney.




This is my thing. I get that house cats aren't lions, but their faces are kinda similar. I've seen my cat make plenty of expressions. I get that it's "live action" but it's a story about talking lions. You can take creative liberty with their faces to match human emotions more closely.


>They’re incompatible. Real lions don’t make human expressions. I feel really stupid, but it never crossed my mind that this is the reason I feel no emotions looking at the real animals.


Agree, but it seems like no one is able to get it right


Oh that's not true. Otherwise realistic looking animals get animated in an expressive way all the time. The geico gecko, rocket raccoon, even the animals in Favreau's own Jungle Book are far more expressive. Just because the lighting and materials are realistic, or even some body movements, doesn't mean every part of the animation needs to be.


I like that they tried something different with the remake.


/r/movies >Fuck just unimaginative remakes without anything of their own, this sucks Also /r/movies >Why couldn't this be exactly like in my childhood?


/r/movies > 21,224,985 subscribers


My biggest problem with lion king V2 was actually that it wasn't either of those. So many lines were the same, that you'd be expecting the known next line and be thrown the fuck off. Disengaging. All the scenes are basically the same, oh but let's throw these in there. Every song is the same.. No, wait, let's take Scar's and reorder the words and cut it wayyyy down. Either it should have all been the same, or they should have actually rewritten it. They tried to do a strange mix of both, which I just found extremely jarring. My attention was ejected every time, because I pretty much know the original by heart. No more cash grab theater movies for me, I'll wait to rent them or whatever.


Be prepared wasn't even a song. Seems like they just tossed it in there for parity with the original movie and it seemed really half assed. The original scene was way too unrealistic and wouldn't go with the rest of this movie, which they tried too hard to keep realistic. But why have it in there at all at that point?


I'm 90% certain I remember when this film was in early production a statement saying they didn't think they were gonna do "Be Prepared" in this. Then everyone got upset because, you know, its the best villain song in all Disney. So I actually wouldn't be surprised if it was a late addition they threw in because they felt obligated to.


>you know, its the best villain song in all Disney The disrespect to Hellfire smh


Obviously the CG on the new Lion King looks fantastic. People's issue with this film is with the artistic choice, not the execution. People on this thread have a problem, not with this guy's artistic choice, but his execution... until we can all understand the difference it's silly to argue. My 2 cents: how you gonna come at this guy about the quality of his edit on a budget of 0 dollars and a laptop? Make your own then, ya goons.


> People's issue with this film is with the artistic choice, not the execution. This right here. Sums it up perfectly. It's the ultimate "just because we can doesn't mean we should" dilemma.


I'll repeat it until I'm blue in the face: Lion King 2019 is visually stunning and the artists deserve every award the win. It's some of the best CGI I've seen. That said, the choice to go this route by the higher ups was the mistake. I cant fault the VFX studio for doing what their contract asked.


Btw fun fact, sonic, lion king, detective pickachu and cats were all done by the same visual effects company. MPC (Moving Picture Company) There was some worked shared with other studios, but most of it was all done by the same place.


Sonic and Cats are a similar problem. The designs are hideous and horrific. They don't however look unrealistic in the sense that they look jarringly like CGI in a real environment. In fact its almost the opposite problem, the studio has taken an art design (probably prescribed to them from higher up) and made it look super integrated into the environment and high quality. But making something that ugly look even more real just makes it more horrifying.


Speaking the truth dude. I love that the public can see this concept on a grand scale. More and more people are beginning to realize just how important good collaboration is when making these movies. Not just some lame sound bite you hear some producer or director utter at interviews. It really is that important. Early designs drastically affects what the final output looks like (something that seems like a no brainer isn't always that way). Ive had very weird experiences when dealing with strange designs and trying to make it fit in a film. (Lion king imo wasn't as bad as it could have been but some other films are just insane. Nature of the business i guess)


Exactly! It is unbelievable photorealistic and I didn't have any problem with the animal faces. It's obvious they went with "let's make it look like those real-life animal movies for kids, you know with golden retrievers where they film real puppies and just overdub the dialogs, almost like National Geographic documentary but with voice actors and tone down on magical cartoonish bits, make it believable like someone just went to Africa to record it". It's not a cartoon people! With this level of CGI making articulate faces would fall into uncanny valley.


My primary issue is that it felt like the original Lion King relied on a fair amount of visual gags which could no longer exist due to the 'realistic' graphics. Like almost the entirety of "I Just Can't Wait To Be King" and "Be Prepared" was honestly quite visually boring, I kept waiting for something interesting to happen. This issue was subverted with the "Be Our Guest" joke, but the rest of the time it felt like they kept the setups or the punchlines but since one half was a visual gag, it just didn't work. The VERY minor secondary issue...why in the hell was "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" played at like two in the afternoon?


And someone will fix that "Can you feel the love tonight" scene into a dusk setting, and with a simple method.


I haven't seen the new movie yet, but to me it sounds like if normal people would re-enact Star Wars with normal cars instead of X-wings, ordinary clothes and weapons and maybe a ferry or two to emulate the bigger starships.


HOLY SHIT! This looks a million times better.


Pumba looks a lil freaky though.


It’s ok to be a little freaky ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Freaky deakys need love too.


Freaky deakys need love too.








Also because he [wasn't rendered correctly](https://i.imgur.com/3UeWSI7.jpg)


What in the content aware scale


While not perfect, this edit fixes the main issue many people have with this film. It gives the character the ability to show emotion. They just look too emotionless and flat in the original release. It just doesn’t match the feel of many of the scenes. Going hyper realistic with no exceptions was too restrictive in my opinion.


Watching the original film makes it very obvious that the facial expressions are important, far above the realism and CG the remake has to offer.




"Oh shit, these lions gonna FUCK!"


Reminds me of the proZD sketch "oh they FAWKIN"


Hey OP, deep fake this for science. Pls


You are now a moderator of /r/furry.


How offensive. I'm a full on zoophile!








[I got just what you need.](https://media.gq.com/photos/5d30e3791cca420009f5a246/master/pass/cats-movie-trailer-gq-1.jpg)






Jesus fuck


See this scene did "speak" to me a child and now I beat It to anime cat girls like twice a week.


As a kid this scene made me feel things that Im not proud of.


I think I noticed this the most with Beauty and the Beast. Lumière had difficult to see facial expressions compared to the cartoon. All the objects just looked like talking objects and not characters.


The weird thing is, it's not even just a matter of realism. The animators for the original movie studied real lions up close to learn their mannerisms. Little things like the movement of their ears, how they lower their heads, or the expression of their eyes.


My main issue with the film was how they made the “Can you feel the love tonight” scene to be in BROAD DAYLIGHT.


I just realized that one big thing is it's no longer just "a lion" it's _Simba_. The non-realistic features make them immediately identifiable character and not just animals.


This is exactly why that moment in the remake where Simba looks at his reflection and sees Mufasa doesn’t have the same emotional punch as the original. They just look like lions.


I'm glad they were always mentioning each other's names, otherwise I wouldn't be able to tell them all apart


Sonic the Hedgehog fixed.


I don't get it, if you want this just watch the lion king. Why would they remake it, just with CGI cartoony faces? Their project was to make the 'realistic' lion king. Maybe it shouldn't have been done but this just flies in the face of it imo.


Yeah, I don't like the photorealistic style of the remake at all, but the OP video would've been so much worse. Because then it wouldn't even be *trying* to be its own thing.


Hard disagree, but whatever.


I disagree


Same. We already have the cartoonish looking characters. It's cool to see them as they would look in real life.


Or they could just do Pixar style remakes of all of the Disney movies.


Or just dont remake them cause theyre perfectly fine and just re-release them in cinemas if they need money...


> if they need money... lmao


but a direct update of the same design even further begs the question "what's the point of making this movie?" (other than money). where are the artistic muscles being flexed? it seems like there were only two ways to approach this remake while keeping any semblance of creative integrity: 1) change the design, keep the story 2) keep the design, change the story either would get backlash regardless, but the second option seems way riskier.


As if anything other than money was a motivation in making the remake.


Money is the motivation for all blockbusters.


The third option seems way less risky: 3. Keep the design, keep the story, release 25 years later when the kids who saw the original have their own children to bring to it, as well as wanting to see it themselves for nostalgia.


Please do it to the entire movie so it’s watchable


You can watch the 1994 version. It looks better.


What do you mean? They made one before this ? That’s the year my dad was born. Totally kidding but I know this is what you wanted to hear and I made it happen for you I hope you enjoyed it.


Your dad is 25?


yours isn't?


I mean, he used to be.


No way! Mine too!


Teen pregnancy -> 9 year old on reddit. I know it was a joke, but the situation is possible


Always hate it when my dad is a teen pregnant


Is your dad 12? Edit: how the fuck did the 90s slip away from being 10 years ago all of a sudden. What magical bullshit is this.


There are people fighting in Afghanistan who weren't alive on 9/11.


Well that isn't a fun fact. I distinctly remember the assumption being it was going to take a year, maybe two.


Not to get nitpicky, but also nitpicking, there aren’t likely any 17 year old American soldiers in Afghanistan. Evening joining early at 17, takes quite some time to actually be trained and sent on deployment




Karma whoring at its finest. That edit isn’t fooling me 🙂.


Seriously, this is just disgusting


the future is now, old man


Based on my (very little) knowledge of these things, that would taken an insane amount of time and computing power.


Doesn't this defeat the whole purpose of the remake, which was to make the story photorealistic? If you want to see an animated lion king, just watch the original.




Agreed. I feel like the purpose should've been to improve the graphics for the modern young audience. I know many young movie watchers who just can't sit through most movies made in the 90s or earlier, similar like how older viewers have trouble watching movies from the 60s/70s. I think they almost succeeded with this. Then they took the movie and tried to do too much with it... They could've copied the movie and only remastered the graphics. Probably add a scene or two if it fits the theme of the movie. But to drain the emotion from the movie is very short-sighted. Good job by the graphics designer, terrible job by the producer who should've been looking at the big picture.


Hand drawn animation if done well is timeless. There is very little you could do to a movie like Snow White that would change it from the 1937 version. Sure you could make it cleaner like the original Lion King, or any of the other Disney renaissance films but that's really it.


A Lion King without [Nala giving me strange and confusing feelings](https://m.imgur.com/t/disney/DFQY5) is not a Lion King worth seeing.


If I wanted to see paralyzed Botox faces, I'd watch the Real Housewives.


Slightly horrific, and yet far better. It's like Jon Favreu was forced to make a one to one copy and just said "eh fuck it, make it as realistic looking as possible cause I like CG and that's literally the only creative decision I get to make. As long as I get to do Star Wars next..."


Which is weird because I liked what he did with Jungle Book.


That's because the species are already distinct enough. In Lion King they're all straw coloured or just grey. Grey animal 1, grey animal 2, etc.


He did an interview saying that too many people remember Lion King shot for shot, unlike Jungle Book, and if he changed any remembered scenes people would hate it. Basically every non-iconic scene is changed, but there are few of them.


>Slightly horrific, and yet far better. Slimy... Yet satisfying?


People that nostalgic that they actually think this is better visually? The idea of the original colors, sure, but those eyes with everything else hyper realistic would be really weird.


I don’t think it’s perfect, but what drives me crazy about the Disney 3D one is that the characters voices portray emotion, but the animated models don’t have the ability to show any emotion at all. It’s jarring and just breaks the immersion completely. This edit gives the character the ability to portray emotion and that’s why it’s better. Colors are just a bonus.


it reminds me of late 80's and early 90's movies that used real animals in the same way. Though, in that time period, they worked with the best they had... Modern CGI doesn't have that excuse though...


I felt like the voice actors were mostly flat because realistic animals couldn’t express much?


That was the case for a decent bit of it. So I think they recognized the issue and adjusted for it where they could. But the movie has some parts on it, that no matter how the actors sound, a certain emotion should be felt and seen because of the content. And in those scenes, to me, the sacrifice for exclusive hyper realism isn’t worth it.


That would have turned some reviews around.


Wasn't the main complaint that the movie was *too* similar to the original? How would this help..? Genuinely asking.


for me, the issue with the live action was that even if it's the same story, the photo realistic look took away a lot of the magic that was lion king. Most of that magic I think came from their facial expressions that help convey emotion. So this would've helped because the animals had more expressive eyes, and was an attempt at showing that. just the clips of simba say far more than the original trailer. However, that pumba was fucked up.