- 53,457
- 21,038
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
I forgot if I liked jungle book. There were 2 different recent movies (one not by Disney).
DISNEY Classics Live-Action Remakes - Upcoming: Snow White, Mufasa, Lilo&Stitch, Moana...
- 43,425
- 42,998
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
Watching realistic animals stand and deliver monologues for an hour and a half just didn’t look right to me. Jungle book was almost only that. It’s was more a “look at our new technology!” Flex than a movie 
- 7,498
- 5,069
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
I’m hyped. Lion king my childhood favorite. Happy won’t do us wrong.
- 37,102
- 31,513
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
I think there will be the people who'll get way too analytical with their review with this film and many who'll enjoy it for the nostalgia of it all.
The movie will be successful and entertaining. Excited to hear Glover in this role...could care less about Beyonce though lol.
The movie will be successful and entertaining. Excited to hear Glover in this role...could care less about Beyonce though lol.
- 53,457
- 21,038
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
Dunno why they even got beyonce's old self to voice a young lioness.
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- 42,963
- 15,346
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
I'm just going to be praying that there's more emoting than there was in the Jungle Book.
In the Aladdin live action, the tiger Rajah emoted a little bit. If The Lion King characters can't even do the kind of facial expressions Rajah did I'll be so upset with Jon Favreau.
In the Aladdin live action, the tiger Rajah emoted a little bit. If The Lion King characters can't even do the kind of facial expressions Rajah did I'll be so upset with Jon Favreau.
big j 33
Supporter
- 35,948
- 16,664
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
I think any worry or discomfort we have with the realistic animals talking and singing will go away once we're in the movie. It looks weird in clips and short segments, but once your brain gets used to it, I hope it will feel normal and natural.
I respect their decision to make them photo-realistic and not have them give unnatural emotion, and I'll trust Favreau and Disney that on THIS property, they got it right.
I respect their decision to make them photo-realistic and not have them give unnatural emotion, and I'll trust Favreau and Disney that on THIS property, they got it right.
- 74,615
- 62,290
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- 43,425
- 42,998
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
I’m sure this will be much better than jungle book
- 32,830
- 24,897
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2012
What the hell is the budget for this film? The CG is nuts
- 27,465
- 27,243
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
Lion King is my childhood fav. Stoked to see it next Saturday!
- 74,615
- 62,290
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
i dont think its 100% confirmed but...
A $250 million extravaganza
Though the budget for the live-action The Lion King hasn’t officially been confirmed, Marvel Studios boss, Kevin Feige let it slip that the movie would have a $250 million budget and it looks like every penny was well spent. Not only did Disney have to get the animation and music just right, but they also had to be able to afford Beyoncé, which we’re sure was a costly penny.
The original animated classic only cost Disney $45 million, and it made almost $1 billion back in the box office across the globe. The Lion King’s budget also gives Favreau a bit more to play with then he had for The Jungle Book which was budgeted at $177 million.
not farfetch considering JB cost $177m
also something consider:
Meanwhile, their most costly animated feature was Tangled which cost the studio, $260 million. This year, Disney’s most costly animated features are Frozen 2 which will premiere November 22, 2019, and Toy Story 4 which will debut, June 21, 2019. The films both have budgets of $200 million –which isn’t quite as costly as The Lion King but about almost as budget busting.
- 37,102
- 31,513
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
Wow, had no idea Tangled had that big of a budget. (Awesome movie, btw. The series on Disney is a good continuation as well)
- 44,335
- 73,941
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2004
good review
Jon Favreau’s reimagining of The Lion King is probably the most visually striking effects-heavy movie I’ve ever seen. And it’s not even necessarily the main characters that fully achieve that seemingly hyperbolic first sentence – but it’s more this all-encompassing world he and his team have created. For instance, there’s a scene featuring a dung beetle pushing a ball of giraffe **** across the desert and I was mesmerized. People will argue if a remake of The Lion King is “necessary” (we’ll get to that), but putting that aside for a second: The Lion King is a monumental achievement of technological advancement. I’ve never seen anything quite like it.
Look, I was also one of those people who thought the imagery all looked kind of weird after watching the trailer and some television commercials. But I also knew Favreau pulled off something similar with 2016’s The Jungle Book and, yes, he knows what he’s doing. The problem is, in short snippets, the imagery does look a little weird.The actors aren’t mocapped, so it’s just real looking animals who speak English. Yes, this will probably be divisive. But when I watched the full-length movie, it gradually brought me in and immersed me in this insanely beautiful CGI (or photorealism, or whatever they are calling it) world. And the results are stunning.
But, the original The Jungle Book doesn’t have the cultural importance in 2019 that the original The Lion King still has. This makes sense, because basically anyone in their 30s (or even early 40s) right now saw The Lion King, 25 years ago, at an influential age. And those people are very protective of the original movie and what it means to them. Which has led to an outcry of the “is this necessary?” argument. (For the record, I have very little The Lion King nostalgia. I am The Lion King agnostic. I was at the age where I felt too old to be going to Disney animated movies, yet not old enough to realize it doesn’t matter and I should have gone to the Disney animated movie. I eventually saw it on VHS.)
“Is this movie necessary?” is kind of a strange argument. What happens is someone will present this question on social media, then other people will just kind of keep repeating it without really thinking about what they are asking. This happens all the time. It reminds me of the scene in Planes, Trains and Automobiles when Del Griffith and Neal Page are driving the wrong way down the interstate as two Samaritans try to warn them. Del tells Neal not to worry about it, because how would those people know where Neal and Del are headed? Neal gives a satisfying nod, “Yeah, how would they know?” – before seeing the oncoming vehicles. But that moment where Neal accepts Del’s argument always reminds me of these kinds of social media talking points when a talking point makes no sense.
Because in a given year, how many movies are “necessary”? It’s a pretty small number! Was Spider-Man: Far From Home necessary? Was The Shape of Water necessary? Looking around your apartment or house, how many of the items that you own are “necessary?” When I saw the new The Lion King there were a lot of kids with their parents. I bet in their minds, both the kids and the parents, at that moment, it felt “necessary.” (The kids were really into this movie.) Anyway, whatever! (Also, Disney’s shareholders will probably also find it “necessary.”)
So, as I said before, I’m The Lion Kingagnostic, where I do not at all have every beat of this story memorized. And, to be honest, I came into this movie pretty indifferent. And it won me over incredibly fast. It’s funny – Billy Eichner’s Timon and Seth Rogen’s Pumbaa will, deservedly, get a lot of headlines, but don’t sleep on John Oliver’s Zazu – sad (yes, that scene), and Chiwetel Ejiofor’s Scar is terrifying. Also, JD McCrary as young Simba is an absolute delight. (Also, not surprisingly, Nals get a little more screen time here because, well, if you cast Beyoncé, you’re sure as heck going to make sure Beyoncé has a good amount of dialogue). Though, because of the nature of what this movie is going for, the musical numbers are a lot less grandiose and playful, which is something I did like about the original.
But, my goodness, to hear James Earl Jones’ booming voice return to the role as Mufasa is just fantastic. Jones is 88 now and it’s not quite the same voice – it’s still wonderful, but there’s something maybe a little more fragile in there. And when Mufasa explains to Simba that, yes, he does get scared, there’s something really powerful about that hint of fragility.
Look, I’ll admit, maybe it’s my lack of overwhelming familiarity (basically where I don’t remember every single beat) with the original that led to my reaction of, “Holy heck, what a movie!” But I think a lot of people will be in my situation. (And, honestly, I know what it’s like to lose a father now, so that aspect hit me pretty hard this time around, as opposed to 25 years ago. I’d be lying if I didn’t admit this plays a role.) And, look, there will be plenty of reviews out there from people who love the original who may feel similar to how I do, or may feel differently. But if you want that perspective, The Lion King die-hard perspective, those are readily available. But The Lion King was a movie I had kind of forgotten about, and now it all came rushing back in Favreau’s new version and I was immersed. I tried to resist, but it got me.
‘The Lion King’ hits theaters July 18. You can contact Mike Ryan directly on Twitter.
Jon Favreau’s reimagining of The Lion King is probably the most visually striking effects-heavy movie I’ve ever seen. And it’s not even necessarily the main characters that fully achieve that seemingly hyperbolic first sentence – but it’s more this all-encompassing world he and his team have created. For instance, there’s a scene featuring a dung beetle pushing a ball of giraffe **** across the desert and I was mesmerized. People will argue if a remake of The Lion King is “necessary” (we’ll get to that), but putting that aside for a second: The Lion King is a monumental achievement of technological advancement. I’ve never seen anything quite like it.
Look, I was also one of those people who thought the imagery all looked kind of weird after watching the trailer and some television commercials. But I also knew Favreau pulled off something similar with 2016’s The Jungle Book and, yes, he knows what he’s doing. The problem is, in short snippets, the imagery does look a little weird.The actors aren’t mocapped, so it’s just real looking animals who speak English. Yes, this will probably be divisive. But when I watched the full-length movie, it gradually brought me in and immersed me in this insanely beautiful CGI (or photorealism, or whatever they are calling it) world. And the results are stunning.
But, the original The Jungle Book doesn’t have the cultural importance in 2019 that the original The Lion King still has. This makes sense, because basically anyone in their 30s (or even early 40s) right now saw The Lion King, 25 years ago, at an influential age. And those people are very protective of the original movie and what it means to them. Which has led to an outcry of the “is this necessary?” argument. (For the record, I have very little The Lion King nostalgia. I am The Lion King agnostic. I was at the age where I felt too old to be going to Disney animated movies, yet not old enough to realize it doesn’t matter and I should have gone to the Disney animated movie. I eventually saw it on VHS.)
“Is this movie necessary?” is kind of a strange argument. What happens is someone will present this question on social media, then other people will just kind of keep repeating it without really thinking about what they are asking. This happens all the time. It reminds me of the scene in Planes, Trains and Automobiles when Del Griffith and Neal Page are driving the wrong way down the interstate as two Samaritans try to warn them. Del tells Neal not to worry about it, because how would those people know where Neal and Del are headed? Neal gives a satisfying nod, “Yeah, how would they know?” – before seeing the oncoming vehicles. But that moment where Neal accepts Del’s argument always reminds me of these kinds of social media talking points when a talking point makes no sense.
Because in a given year, how many movies are “necessary”? It’s a pretty small number! Was Spider-Man: Far From Home necessary? Was The Shape of Water necessary? Looking around your apartment or house, how many of the items that you own are “necessary?” When I saw the new The Lion King there were a lot of kids with their parents. I bet in their minds, both the kids and the parents, at that moment, it felt “necessary.” (The kids were really into this movie.) Anyway, whatever! (Also, Disney’s shareholders will probably also find it “necessary.”)
So, as I said before, I’m The Lion Kingagnostic, where I do not at all have every beat of this story memorized. And, to be honest, I came into this movie pretty indifferent. And it won me over incredibly fast. It’s funny – Billy Eichner’s Timon and Seth Rogen’s Pumbaa will, deservedly, get a lot of headlines, but don’t sleep on John Oliver’s Zazu – sad (yes, that scene), and Chiwetel Ejiofor’s Scar is terrifying. Also, JD McCrary as young Simba is an absolute delight. (Also, not surprisingly, Nals get a little more screen time here because, well, if you cast Beyoncé, you’re sure as heck going to make sure Beyoncé has a good amount of dialogue). Though, because of the nature of what this movie is going for, the musical numbers are a lot less grandiose and playful, which is something I did like about the original.
But, my goodness, to hear James Earl Jones’ booming voice return to the role as Mufasa is just fantastic. Jones is 88 now and it’s not quite the same voice – it’s still wonderful, but there’s something maybe a little more fragile in there. And when Mufasa explains to Simba that, yes, he does get scared, there’s something really powerful about that hint of fragility.
Look, I’ll admit, maybe it’s my lack of overwhelming familiarity (basically where I don’t remember every single beat) with the original that led to my reaction of, “Holy heck, what a movie!” But I think a lot of people will be in my situation. (And, honestly, I know what it’s like to lose a father now, so that aspect hit me pretty hard this time around, as opposed to 25 years ago. I’d be lying if I didn’t admit this plays a role.) And, look, there will be plenty of reviews out there from people who love the original who may feel similar to how I do, or may feel differently. But if you want that perspective, The Lion King die-hard perspective, those are readily available. But The Lion King was a movie I had kind of forgotten about, and now it all came rushing back in Favreau’s new version and I was immersed. I tried to resist, but it got me.
‘The Lion King’ hits theaters July 18. You can contact Mike Ryan directly on Twitter.
- 150,422
- 201,065
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- 32,830
- 24,897
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2012
Here we go 
- 43,425
- 42,998
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
Eeeee...... yeah.....
Nujavez
formerly gatorad3
- 8,206
- 13,984
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- 27,465
- 27,243
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- 74,615
- 62,290
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
gon' be aladdin all over again?
- 43,425
- 42,998
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
And my worries are very real. These movies look like pet food commercials
- 13,057
- 8,805
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- 42,963
- 15,346
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
Aladdin did not deserve that 57 percent
- 43,206
- 28,385
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
Damn man, not Simba, man. Nah. You can't mess up The Lion King bro.
What the ****.
What the ****.
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- 42,963
- 15,346
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
I'm still going to watch but my expectations are super low
