Support NeoGAF

[jett]

They need to only remake their very old or more mediocre releases, remaking a recent and excellent film of theirs is really pointless (that goes for the Lion King remake too).
Instead of remaking BATB and Lion King, why not remake the Black Cauldron or something?

Nobody cares about The Black Cauldron.

 

[ratcliffja]

That's a shame. Jungle Book was surprisingly good, and I thought the trailers for this looked pretty good as well. My wife is absolutely hyped for this, so we'll be seeing it. I won't mention the impressions so far since that will bum her out. I'd rather leave it up to her to decide.

The Jungle Book was a pretty mess. It was such a disappointment in every way. The casting was awful aside from Bagheera, the singing was terrible, and essentially every story change was for the worse.
Edit: Lion King has the same team? Yikes.

 

[Not]

Nobody cares about The Black Cauldron.

It'd certainly be cool if they made a good version though

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Man I'm so scared for Lion King

Favreau isn't like these mediocre directors.
He's already proven himself, many times over. Most recently, with JUNGLE BOOK where he made an amazing Disney movie and is now the standard for Disney live action remakes.

 

[Ohwiseone]

60% now.

Still think it will hold at 70% - 75%..

I am seeing more positive than negative.

 

[HeartlessNobody213]

Will still make bank even if it's just average.

 

[Fancyarcher]

The fact that the movie is 40 minutes LONGER than the original really worries me. One of the best part of the original is that its super short, but still so effective.


I am probably not going to like it, but it is just because I hold the 91 version is such high regard.


Also not looking forward to the Ballroom Scene (considering every review makes it sound like its Blah.) Which is shocking considering how effective Cinderella's was.

The original was animated, though. So they were limited by what they could do. Yes, it's great that they did a good story in such a decent length, but there were plenty of scenes they wanted to animate but couldn't due do to the budget.

Of course, the remake would be a bit longer, especially being in live-action. Doesn't seem like it entirely works though.

 

[Meier]

I think anything less than true universal acclaim will knock about $100m off its box office prospects at least, but it will still be a monster (pun intended) regardless.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

60% now.

Still think it will hold at 70% - 75%..

I am seeing more positive than negative.

You're looking at 60% maximum I would say.

 

[Meowster]

It'll still sell well but I've had my doubts ever since they cast Emma Watson as Belle. She should fit her perfectly on paper but I just don't see it. A younger Anne Hathaway would have been perfect. At least Luke Evans looks really good as Gaston.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

So basically from what I've read, adds nothing of value to the original and even takes away from it

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Newsweek!
The New York Times!
The Hollywood Reporter!
Salon!

..


...Jeremy Jahns!

 

[old]

Felt like they filmed it two months after announcing the cast. Usually not a problem but I've not known Emma Watson to sing and I don't see how you learn in such short a time.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Newsweek!
The New York Times!
The Hollywood Reporter!
Salon!

..


...Jeremy Jahns!

His videos are horrible

 

[yogloo]

Watson is miscast as belle.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Don't. Favreau and Gambino. It's gonna haul.

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about Lion King.

Although I do start to wonder that, as these movies begin adapting animated stories whose charms/magic depended heavily on the level of fantasticism that animation can provide, whether people are going to start bumping up against the flattening/leadening that inevitably happens when you try to move something from animation to live action.

I don't even know how the fuck they're getting away with calling The Lion King "live-action" at all, honestly. If there aren't any people in it, it's just a hyper-realistic CGI animated movie using real landscapes as partial backgrounds.

 

[JSevere]

wow the reviews are all over the place

 

[Ithil]

Nobody cares about The Black Cauldron.

So you have a blank slate to make something new out of it then. Even better.

 

[Pop-O-Matic]

74% right now.

 

[Fancyarcher]

74% right now.

Those Disney checks came late I see.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Man that runtime. Come on Disney.

 

[Oersted]

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about Lion King.

Although I do start to wonder that, as these movies begin adapting animated stories whose charms/magic depended heavily on the level of fantasticism that animation can provide, whether people are going to start bumping up against the flattening/leadening that inevitably happens when you try to move something from animation to live action.

I don't even know how the fuck they're getting away with calling The Lion King "live-action" at all, honestly. If there aren't any people in it, it's just a hyper-realistic CGI animated movie using real landscapes as partial backgrounds.

Well Jungle Book is considered live action, despite using less live action than the Bakshi LotR

 

[Lebron]

74% right now.

Disney checks going out

 

[Extra Sauce]

Newsweek!
The New York Times!
The Hollywood Reporter!
Salon!

..


...Jeremy Jahns!

Why is that dude popular? Like, Chris Stuckmann is awful but I at least understand the appeal...

 

[LiK]

74% on RT with 23 reviews.

 

[Whompa02]

Chris Stuckmann & Jeremy Jahns

ugh barf to both of them. Both formats are insufferable. Hope the movie isn't total crap. Going to see it when its out on dvd for sure.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Well Jungle Book is considered live action, despite using less live action than the Bakshi LotR

I know. It's ridiculous, but at least Jungle Book has a few actual people in it, and its lead is a person (for at least 70% of the time, I think) who was actually in front of a camera at one point and acting.

But unless they're introducing a human character into the Lion King, and casting a human being to play that human character on camera - there's no way that movie is "live action."

 

[eggandI]

Haha I could tell from that thread title the reviews wouldn't be very positive

 

[opricnik]

hahaha

i wonder whose gonna eat crow in a few weeks

Beauty will underperform. It looks like total shit.

Logan will be hard hit for March and April until gotg2 releases new Deadpool legs bookmark it

 

[Astral]

I think I might enjoy the movie as long as they fucking kill it with the mob song. That's the scene I'm most looking forward to.

 

[jett]

It'd certainly be cool if they made a good version though

So you have a blank slate to make something new out of it then. Even better.

My point is that that's why they aren't remaking the lesser work. This is all about taking advantage of their old pedigree and people's nostalgia.

 

[Blader]

hahaha

i wonder whose gonna eat crow in a few weeks

seem to be overlooking Fate of the Furious in April.

 

[kswiston]

I know. It's ridiculous, but at least Jungle Book has a few actual people in it, and its lead is a person (for at least 70% of the time, I think) who was actually in front of a camera at one point and acting.

But unless they're introducing a human character into the Lion King, and casting a human being to play that human character on camera - there's no way that movie is "live action."

Live action just means real sets and scenery + "realistic" looking cgi things these days. Actual human performances not involving motion capture are optional.

 

[kswiston]

hahaha

i wonder whose gonna eat crow in a few weeks

Still you most likely. Maleficent made $750M off a 50% RT score. Families don't care.

 

[torre_avenue]

And to think Emma Watson turned down "La La Land" for this.

If "The Circle" doesn't do well, I guess she can't pick projects at all.

 

[Ithil]

My point is that that's why they aren't remaking the lesser work. This is all about taking advantage of their old pedigree and people's nostalgia.

The original Jungle Book adaptation isn't all that good, their live action version was a massive improvement on nearly all levels.

 

[SchrodingerC]

My point is that that's why they aren't remaking the lesser work. This is all about taking advantage of their old pedigree and people's nostalgia.

They tried revamping an older property before.
Disney took a shot with Pete's Dragon, a lesser known 'film' of theirs, but no one seems to give a fuck that it exists.
I mean, it made money and that's about it.

 

[andythinkpad]

Worst Disney live adaptation ever?

 

[opricnik]

Still you most likely. Maleficent made $750M off a 50% RT score. Families don't care.

Those were before super heros became goldshit.Alice 1 made 1 billion while second was shit , those were Disney movies too reminder.

 

[andythinkpad]

And to think Emma Watson turned down "La La Land" for this.

If "The Circle" doesn't do well, I guess she can't pick projects at all.

She would be awful for Lala Land. Emma Stone has a tiny voice but she is very good at playing struggling actress-waitress.

 

[Lucreto]

I was hoping it would score really well.

All the media I have seen has me hyped.

Some of the reviews contradict each other.

 

[Linkura]

This is going to make a shitload of money regardless of reviews. I won't be seeing it though; looks like a garbage cash-in.

The fact that the movie is 40 minutes LONGER than the original really worries me.

WHAT THE FUCK

HOW

God dammit Hollywood, longer doesn't mean better.

 

[Nerokis]

Maleficent is at 50%, Cinderella is at 83%, and so far, Beauty and the Beast is at 74%.

Considering I liked the former two quite a bit, I think the RT score is sending me a positive message here.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

Oh wow it increased a lot.

Also, the movie has 3-4 new songs in addition to all the old ones. That doesn't account for all 40 of the extra minutes, but a decent chunk at least.

 

[kswiston]

Those were before super heros became goldshit.Alice 1 made 1 billion while second was shit , those were Disney movies too reminder.

Outright state what you think Beauty and the Beast will do at the domestic and WW box office then.

 

[Arkeband]

Man I'm so scared for Lion King

CGI Lion King is so pointless.

Kind of like all of these awful adapations.

And to think Emma Watson turned down "La La Land" for this.

If "The Circle" doesn't do well, I guess she can't pick projects at all.

Gotta face facts, Emma Watson is not a good actress. She's only slightly above Rupert Grint tier.

 

[EatinOlives]

She would be awful for Lala Land. Emma Stone has a tiny voice but she is very good at playing struggling actress-waitress.

Yeah Watson would've been seriously miscast for La La Land.

 

[overcast]

These reviews sound in line with what I thought of The Jungle Book.

This is exactly what I was going to say.

 

[acevans2]

I have an RT score bet with someone that determines whether we go see it. I'm personally not loving the idea of going, if it maintains this 70%+ result.

We're seeing Get Out, and I'd love to see Logan and Kong before submitting the 2.5+ hours of time for this.

 

[Oersted]

I was hoping it would score really well.

All the media I have seen has me hyped.

Some of the reviews contradict each other.

You just have to spot the reviews where its obvious the writer didn't watch the movie