Jon Favreau set to direct live action Lion King

[twebber55]

News

Jon Favreau's next project... Live action Lion King....





Why? Just why do we have to redo good things?

Jungle book almost made a billion

EDIT: not saying its right but i am saying there is a market for it

 

[Budshark]

Jungle book almost made a billion

Wait... what?!? Are you saying Disney is making movies for profit and not for the artistic or historical value of making said movies? I suppose next you'll imply the Theme Parks exist to extract money from people, and are not some altruistic endeavor for the betterment of societies children.

Blasphemy. You can see yourself out, Sir!

 

[rteetz]

Jungle book almost made a billion

EDIT: not saying its right but i am saying there is a market for it

I know and it was really well done. Lion king is probably my favorite Disney movie, but are we at the point where they can't make anything else except for remakes? I'm sure it will be good and I'll of course go see it but do we really need it?

 

[mikepizzo]

I know and it was really well done. Lion king is probably my favorite Disney movie, but are we at the point where they can't make anything else except for remakes? I'm sure it will be good and I'll of course go see it but do we really need it?

Of course they could, but from a business standpoint, why risk it? Just because something is a remake doesn't mean it's going to be a turd. Pretty sure a ton of people are excited for the Beauty and the Beast movie.

Disney doing remakes is nothing new. They've remade a ton of their old live action films (Flubber, Parent Trap, Shaggy Dog, etc). They even tried to remake some of their old animation films in the past (101 Dalmatians).

As long as the film is quality, I don't see the problem in a remake. It's when you can tell they are quick, shoddily made, cash grabs. These recent live action remakes have at least brought a little something to the table. None of them have looked cheap, and for the most part it seemed like everyone has cared for each project.

And to answer your second question, no, of course we don't need it. It's a product that is being sold and it's up to the consumer to decide if they want to purchase it. If one doesn't like remakes in general, one should not pay to go see them. Vote with your wallet, it seems to be just about the only vote that counts these days.

 

[Grym]

News

Jon Favreau's next project... Live action Lion King....





Why? Just why do we have to redo good things?

But....

but...what exactly will be live action?
won't it all just be CG?

(I could be way off base here because I haven't seen Jungle Book yet...but was more than Mowgli live action? I'm assuming all the creatures were CG)

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Jeez...a live action Lion king now?

...does anybody else want to join me in the boat that is screaming that Iger Wants out and that they'll really need to think about making a change.

They're becoming so stale...it's mummified.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

But....

but...what exactly will be live action?
won't it all just be CG?

(I could be way off base here because I haven't seen Jungle Book yet...but was more than Mowgli live action? I'm assuming all the creatures were CG)

Exactly...

I didn't think jungle book was bad...but it wasn't good either. These cgi movies don't create legacy...and that's what they need to start thinking about again.

 

[Travis B]

But....

but...what exactly will be live action?
won't it all just be CG?

(I could be way off base here because I haven't seen Jungle Book yet...but was more than Mowgli live action? I'm assuming all the creatures were CG)

You're technically correct. In Jungle Book I'm sure the vast majority of what we see is animated. It looks as if it's live-action, pretty much flawlessly.

It's hard to categorize these new movies - in some ways they are still 'animated' - but in other, harder to define ways they are definitely not in the same category as a movie like Moana or the original Lion King.

I understand @rteetz frustration with remake after remake, but as @mikepizzo said this is not a new phenomenon. The mythic quality of these stories makes them ripe for reinterpretation, so I don't think they're necessarily off-base artistically. In a way it may help keep the older classics more relevant - refreshing the characters in our consciousnesses and mmmmaaaaayyyybbbeee even pointing people back to the original versions. Obviously on the financial side this is huge for them. It's also what people are going to see. It's directly relating to what consumers want. Incredible original movies are being made and then not performing. Kubo and the Two Strings was SO GOOD but it was pretty much ignored.

Ultimately, it's hard for me to criticize Disney for this because:
a.) They are concurrently producing new content.
b.) The product is so just so damn good.

 

[rteetz]

Of course they could, but from a business standpoint, why risk it? Just because something is a remake doesn't mean it's going to be a turd. Pretty sure a ton of people are excited for the Beauty and the Beast movie.

Disney doing remakes is nothing new. They've remade a ton of their old live action films (Flubber, Parent Trap, Shaggy Dog, etc). They even tried to remake some of their old animation films in the past (101 Dalmatians).

As long as the film is quality, I don't see the problem in a remake. It's when you can tell they are quick, shoddily made, cash grabs. These recent live action remakes have at least brought a little something to the table. None of them have looked cheap, and for the most part it seemed like everyone has cared for each project.

And to answer your second question, no, of course we don't need it. It's a product that is being sold and it's up to the consumer to decide if they want to purchase it. If one doesn't like remakes in general, one should not pay to go see them. Vote with your wallet, it seems to be just about the only vote that counts these days.

Risk is what made Disney what it is today. The original lion king was a huge risk and most thought it would fail. It ended up being of Disney's most successful movies. Frozen was a risk and look how that turned out. You have to take risks to have big rewards.

 

[rteetz]

But....

but...what exactly will be live action?
won't it all just be CG?

(I could be way off base here because I haven't seen Jungle Book yet...but was more than Mowgli live action? I'm assuming all the creatures were CG)

That is an excellent point. There are no humans in this movie unlike jungle book.

 

[Travis B]

Exactly...

I didn't think jungle book was bad...but it wasn't good either. These cgi movies don't create legacy...and that's what they need to start thinking about again.

It's neither here nor there, but you cannot state that Jungle was wasn't good as if it's fact. By any objective measure it was hugely successful, and very good (if not great). 1 billion dollars, 95% fresh on rotten tomatoes. You can personally not like it, but that doesn't make it bad.

The CGI remakes reinforce classic legacy stories that might fade into the background otherwise.

Frozen, like it or not, was hugely influential and added to Disney's legacy. Moana likely will. Pixar projects have and will. Star Wars has and will. I guess it depends on how one defines legacy (and I suspect it's different for everyone). I don't understand how one can argue that the legacy is not ongoing.

 

[Grym]

I'm actually fine with remakes (as long as they produce original content as well). I was fine with things like Maleficent or remakes like Cinderella or the upcoming Beauty and the Beast. Go ahead...make live action remakes of Little Mermaid or Pocahontas or Aladdin or whatever else that actually has live action elements.

I just don't understand this one though. It makes as much sense to me as a live action Bambi or Fantasia or something. Why? It is originally 100% animated (drawn) and going to be 100% animated again (computer drawn). The cartoon animation to "realism" CG isn't that interesting to me to be honest. But to each their own I guess...

 

[LSLS]

It's neither here nor there, but you cannot state that Jungle was wasn't good as if it's fact. By any objective measure it was hugely successful, and very good (if not great). 1 billion dollars, 95% fresh on rotten tomatoes. You can personally not like it, but that doesn't make it bad.

The CGI remakes reinforce classic legacy stories that might fade into the background otherwise.

Frozen, like it or not, was hugely influential and added to Disney's legacy. Moana likely will. Pixar projects have and will. Star Wars has and will. I guess it depends on how one defines legacy (and I suspect it's different for everyone). I don't understand how one can argue that the legacy is not ongoing.

He stated that was his opinion. He said he didn't think it was bad nor that it was good, meaning he thought it was kind of an average eh movie.

 

[Travis B]

Risk is what made Disney what it is today. The original lion king was a huge risk and most thought it would fail. It ended up being of Disney's most successful movies. Frozen was a risk and look how that turned out. You have to take risks to have big rewards.

Moana could be considered a risk, no? Queen of Katwe is not animated, but that is a risk. It's not as if these remakes are diminishing the other output of the studios.

 

[rteetz]

Moana could be considered a risk, no? Queen of Katwe is not animated, but that is a risk. It's not as if these remakes are diminishing the other output of the studios.

Yes that is true but look at the Disney renaissance for example. They had so many risks that resulted in success. Maybe the current manangement needs to watch waking sleeping beauty or something. Lately it just seems for every 1 risk movie they make about 5-6 safe movies.

 

[Travis B]

He stated that was his opinion. He said he didn't think it was bad nor that it was good, meaning he thought it was kind of an average eh movie.

I don't mean to be overly literal. I just read "it wasn't good" as a statement of fact rather than opinion I guess.

 

[Travis B]

Yes that is true but look at the Disney renaissance for example. They had so many risks that resulted in success. Maybe the current manangement needs to watch waking sleeping beauty or something. Lately it just seems for every 1 risk movie they make about 5-6 safe movies.

My dear we live in a completely different world than we did during the Disney renaissance. It's apples and oranges, I don't think it's fair to compare the two.

I absolutely understand your desire for innovative content, I totally do. Innovative content seems to live on the internet now, and not as much the movie theater.

 

[mikepizzo]

Risk is what made Disney what it is today. The original lion king was a huge risk and most thought it would fail. It ended up being of Disney's most successful movies. Frozen was a risk and look how that turned out. You have to take risks to have big rewards.

Definitely not disputing your first point. It's just that we are talking about current Disney, not Disney of Christmas Past.

Lion King was a risk, but again, we're not talking about 90's Disney.

I wouldn't really classify Frozen as a risk. I mean, Disney is kind of known for their Princess Movies. Especially princesses of the Caucasian persuasion. If anything I would think Moana is a bigger risk than Frozen because of the cultural differences.

I agree you have to take risk to get big rewards...or...you could re-tell/re-imagine an already existing story that the audience is familiar with and has a passion for.

Like @Travis B said, it's not like they are JUST doing remakes. They also have other things too. This year Disney has/will be releasing "The Finest Hours", "Queen of Katwe", and (along side DreamWorks) "The Light Between Oceans".

 

[rteetz]

My dear we live in a completely different world than we did during the Disney renaissance. It's apples and oranges, I don't think it's fair to compare the two.

I absolutely understand your desire for innovative content, I totally do. Innovative content seems to live on the internet now, and not as much the movie theater.

Who's to say it can't live on the movie screen though? Disney has been and continues to be the gold standard in animation but to keep making remakes is not the Disney I grew to love and I'm 18 years old.

Yes of course times are different than the Disney renaissance but why can't Disney start a new renaissance with new characters. They opened the door for that with frozen being the kick starter, zootopia is another one to add to that list. We will see how Moana does. I was reading comments about this announcement and a lot of people are starting to say why do we need this remake? Or don't we have enough live actions already?

 

[rteetz]

Definitely not disputing your first point. It's just that we are talking about current Disney, not Disney of Christmas Past.

Lion King was a risk, but again, we're not talking about 90's Disney.

I wouldn't really classify Frozen as a risk. I mean, Disney is kind of known for their Princess Movies. Especially princesses of the Caucasian persuasion. If anything I would think Moana is a bigger risk than Frozen because of the cultural differences.

I agree you have to take risk to get big rewards...or...you could re-tell/re-imagine an already existing story that the audience is familiar with and has a passion for.

Like @Travis B said, it's not like they are JUST doing remakes. They also have other things too. This year Disney has/will be releasing "The Finest Hours", "Queen of Katwe", and (along side DreamWorks) "The Light Between Oceans".

I understand and I don't mind the remakes but maybe there are just too many of them being done at once. I think of frozen as a risk because it was about sisters rather than the typical princess and prince story that most others have.

Moana is definitely a risk but one that could pay off well.