Like I said Rotten Tomatoes score will not matter. The Lion King came out in 1994. That's 25yrs now and there are a new generations that haven't seen it yet. The main reason this one isn't getting a better score because they are comparing it to the 1994 version. It's beat for beat exactly the same. Most complains are it's the exact same thing but the live CGI version lack the animated touch of the original. The rave reviews of it being visual stunning will balanced out the negatives. If the visual weren't up to standards then that would be a different story. Since I have no attachment to The Lion King and I'm not going to watch it isn't going to stop this from making tons of money. I'm just a few of the many who will take their kids to either watch it for the first time or watch it again in a different format. I mean if they remake Akira with a live with a visual stunning CGI version in the style of Final Fantasy/Ready Player One shot-for-shot and it score 60% on Rotten I will still watch the hell out of it.Geoffrey wrote: ↑July 12th, 2019, 11:53 pmThe general public isn't directly cognizant of Rotten Tomatoes scores, but the scores do matter as a reflection the film's quality, its public reception, and the film's image that potential viewers will see in the media. Disney can't benefit from advertising "certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes". The however small percentage of viewers that do care about Rotten Tomatoes will have their likelihood of watching it reduced.
The Lion King (2019)
Posts: 320
Joined:
June 2012
I wonder how many of you people who are here to complain about the existence of this film, would have actually said no to hundreds of million dollars in profit, if you were in charge of things, just because of an inconsequential reason that artistically there is no point in making it.
I haven't seen the film yet, and I haven't read everything in the previous pages, but I don't mind - I want to just write down what I feel, without reading previous comments.
I really enjoy the original because the animation is beatiful and moving, mainly because they give human features to animals. This way I don't only get more invested because they seem human, but I also don't have this awkward feeling that I have to look at real animals get hurt. This is something that was immediately alarming once I heard about this CGI remake.
That comparison video kind of proves this point, although it's really just one scene. Bearing in mind that it's a crappy video on the Internet and not a theatrical experience on a big screne, it does look very odd. The way Simba's face is not even changing, the way the sound is just completely detached from the images... it doesn't look very entertaining to me.
I might check it out one day, but at this moment I don't feel like I have to, because I got the full package with the original. I don't think that, for me, this can add anything new. But, as I said, out of curiosity I might check it out in the near future.
Some people are implying that this is only getting worse reviews because they are comparing it to the original, but... yeah, of course they are, because it is a direct "remake" - or an actual copy - of the original. The original, which is merely 25 years old, and haven't aged badly. It's still burnt into pop culture. So I don't think that comparing this one to the original is a bad thing, because as a critic you try to analyze the context of a film as well, not just a film itself. I guess there are several approaches to professional criticism of art, where one would say the piece of art in itself must only be critiqued, while others are saying that you always have to take historic context into consideration. And I have no idea how each and every critic works, but I wouldn't dismiss the comparison between old and new, especially in this case where the new one is deliberately copying the original in several aspects.
I don't want to make a point here, I'm just really writing down my impressions. The argument revolving around how a film is made for commercial reasons rather than artistic reasons is not something I would want to delve into, because it seems like a very, very complex topic for me with several implications. One thing I'd like to point out is that I'm pretty sure the original was mainly greenlit after it was deemed a "commercially appropriate" project. The "truth" in this whole argument, especially in an American film industry, is probably greyish: artistic and commercial reasons are not mutually exclusive. I mean, Beethoven wrote most of his work for commercial reasons... he needed money. A lot. And most of the time he didn't start composing until he got at least some money from his sponsors.
So I guess it comes down to whether or not the film can become unique from an artistic point of view. And it doesn't matter why it exists in the first place. All that matters what becomes of the film after it's made. That's something that is worthy of a discussion.
I really enjoy the original because the animation is beatiful and moving, mainly because they give human features to animals. This way I don't only get more invested because they seem human, but I also don't have this awkward feeling that I have to look at real animals get hurt. This is something that was immediately alarming once I heard about this CGI remake.
That comparison video kind of proves this point, although it's really just one scene. Bearing in mind that it's a crappy video on the Internet and not a theatrical experience on a big screne, it does look very odd. The way Simba's face is not even changing, the way the sound is just completely detached from the images... it doesn't look very entertaining to me.
I might check it out one day, but at this moment I don't feel like I have to, because I got the full package with the original. I don't think that, for me, this can add anything new. But, as I said, out of curiosity I might check it out in the near future.
Some people are implying that this is only getting worse reviews because they are comparing it to the original, but... yeah, of course they are, because it is a direct "remake" - or an actual copy - of the original. The original, which is merely 25 years old, and haven't aged badly. It's still burnt into pop culture. So I don't think that comparing this one to the original is a bad thing, because as a critic you try to analyze the context of a film as well, not just a film itself. I guess there are several approaches to professional criticism of art, where one would say the piece of art in itself must only be critiqued, while others are saying that you always have to take historic context into consideration. And I have no idea how each and every critic works, but I wouldn't dismiss the comparison between old and new, especially in this case where the new one is deliberately copying the original in several aspects.
I don't want to make a point here, I'm just really writing down my impressions. The argument revolving around how a film is made for commercial reasons rather than artistic reasons is not something I would want to delve into, because it seems like a very, very complex topic for me with several implications. One thing I'd like to point out is that I'm pretty sure the original was mainly greenlit after it was deemed a "commercially appropriate" project. The "truth" in this whole argument, especially in an American film industry, is probably greyish: artistic and commercial reasons are not mutually exclusive. I mean, Beethoven wrote most of his work for commercial reasons... he needed money. A lot. And most of the time he didn't start composing until he got at least some money from his sponsors.
So I guess it comes down to whether or not the film can become unique from an artistic point of view. And it doesn't matter why it exists in the first place. All that matters what becomes of the film after it's made. That's something that is worthy of a discussion.
What does this have to do with anything? Just because there's a logical and capitalistic incentive for something doesn't mean you can't rightfully criticize it. The Transformers series also made four billion dollars. It made no sense to replace Michael Bay or the screenwriters until the decline seen in Transformers: The Last Knight—doesn't mean you couldn't critique their practices.Master Virgo wrote: ↑July 13th, 2019, 6:04 amI wonder how many of you people who are here to complain about the existence of this film, would have actually said no to hundreds of million dollars in profit, if you were in charge of things, just because of an inconsequential reason that artistically there is no point in making it.
Last edited by Geoffrey on July 13th, 2019, 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Have seen it and I did like it. Of course, the visuals are insane but more I think about it, the more the slavishness towards the source material (unavoidable as it's so iconic) played against the hyper real approach (I honestly forgot at times I was watching CG). They should've honestly done it either like they're doing Mulan - lose the songs entirely and adapt the story accordingly instead of keeping everything identical except stretching it to 2hours - or have it more heightened, fantasy like, a bit like Mowgli. (This really made me appreciate Serkis' mocap efforts with that even more). With the whole nature doc visual approach there are clear limitations that play against the songs specifically - it's really weird to me - and maybe the very speaking aspect too although it's actually pretty good. The musical sequences where there's no actual animal singing involved (eg Circle of Life) really work in this throwback sort of way...
That's how I felt about Jungle Book too. I really enjoyed that, but I'm surprised its so acclaimed as such. The tonal changes were bizarre.
-Vader
-Vader
Serkis' adaptation of Jungle Book felt more hostile. Which I think was also what he was going for. While at the same time depicting the animals in a much more accepting way. It's just such a pity not all of them fully worked. Like his own Baloo. I also had a bit of a hard time accepting the wolves but I thought that it did worked in the end. Balegheera was, like I said, the highlight. The kid was also much better than the lead in Favreau's film imo
I just don't know what to think of this. I think I'll just wait a couple of months and watch this at home. So far the VFX look mighty impressive. I guess I'll never understand why they didn't brought back Irons for Scar and Goldberg for Shenzi... I mean James Earl Jones is back so..
I just don't know what to think of this. I think I'll just wait a couple of months and watch this at home. So far the VFX look mighty impressive. I guess I'll never understand why they didn't brought back Irons for Scar and Goldberg for Shenzi... I mean James Earl Jones is back so..
Yeah it definitely lacks the magic and warmth the original had, but hell. Technically it's an insanely impressive piece of art, and because the original story and music is so well engraved in me, I had goosebumps for most of the film.
Also Zimmer raised the bar with this one. The stampede scene felt like it could have been a part of Dunkirk or something.
Also Zimmer raised the bar with this one. The stampede scene felt like it could have been a part of Dunkirk or something.
