Support NeoGAF

[jufonuk]

Hes alive still.

But I think he doesn’t do voice acting anymore ?

Darth Vader's voice in Obi-Wan Kenobi was entirely AI-generated

Although James Earl Jones "guided" the performance of his iconic character, the actual lines were all generated by an AI firm in Ukraine

www.avclub.com

 

[Toots]

Hollywood writers might be painfully uncreative, but they always manage to make us laugh !

I hope next IP they want to bleed dry is Hokuto no Ken.
At the end of HnK 1, Kenshiro elopes with Julia and he only comes back years later at the beginning of HnK 2.
If i were a screenwriter, i'd use my "imagination" (whatever IA they're using to churn out screenplays) to tell the story of how, after Julia's death, Ken raised their son to become the heir of Hokuto Shinken.

I mean you can go wherever you want with the story it's gold !
So call me Hollywood execs but know there's one artistic decision i won't compromise on, Ken's son must be named Toots.

 

[jason10mm]

No one thinks they popped over to Africa and trained some animals to speak, act, and sing. It's a reference to the art style.

"Photorealiistic" is the descriptor you are looking for then, not "live action".

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

The last good movie of Disney.

 

[Trogdor1123]

This looks Goofy as all hell, but The Lion King remake made over a billion, so what do I know?

They redid lion king?!

 

[Jenov]

Er, did I just see they put Beyonce and her Blue kid as some sort of ‘Ooooh’ name drop at the end of the trailer? ROFL.

 

[Trogdor1123]

But…. Wasn’t mufasas dad king?

 

[Jinzo Prime]

They redid lion king?!

It made like 1.6 billion dollars in the box office.

 

[Trogdor1123]

It made like 1.6 billion dollars in the box office.

I had no idea… I guess I live under a rock.

 

[YCoCg]

They are really running out of the ideias... is there any original ideia left inside this piece of shit of company?

It's like a cycle, remember the early 2000's when we had a load of sequels like Cinderella 2, Little Mermaid 2, Lion King 1 1/2, Lion King 2, Lion King 3, etc. Once the well runs dry (which sadly feels like a while off if these continue to make bank) then they'll go back to taking a bit longer and coming up with more unique stuff, for example after that shitty phase above we got Pirates of the Caribbean which was a breath of fresh air at the time.

 

[nkarafo]

I don't get this obsession with the expression-less, realistic looking animals. It's like the only rule, everything else is whatever, they can talk, they can sing, they can act like humans, etc, but they need to look like you are watching an animal documentary for some reason.

 

[InterMusketeer]

I don't get this obsession with the expression-less, realistic looking animals. It's like the only rule, everything else is whatever, they can talk, they can sing, they can act like humans, etc, but they need to look like you are watching an animal documentary for some reason.

I think they just invested in the tech for the live action Jungle Book and have been trying to squeeze as much money out if it since then. That's probably what this film is too.

 

[UltimaKilo]

Go away with those ugly cgi creatures.

I want this:

Not this:

Everyone does, but the fact is that it’s way too expensive to do nowadays.

On another note, is Mufasa a trans, lesbian lion in this film?

 

[nkarafo]

I think they just invested in the tech for the live action Jungle Book and have been trying to squeeze as much money out if it since then. That's probably what this film is too.

It makes more sense in the Jungle Book because there is a real human protagonist in there, so the realistic animals don't look out of place with him on screen.

Everyone does, but the fact is that it’s way too expensive to do nowadays.

If you can't have traditional hand crafted animation, you can do expressive characters with CGI too.

 

[Ristifer]

It made like 1.6 billion dollars in the box office.

This poster makes me chuckle. DONALD GLOVER IS SIMBA *shows random lion on poster*

 

[Porcile]

Finally we can learn about the king in the Lion King. And finally we can learn how Scar got his scar. Finally.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

Everyone does, but the fact is that it’s way too expensive to do nowadays.

On another note, is Mufasa a trans, lesbian lion in this film?

They gonna put a Nig... Lion.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

I don't get this obsession with the expression-less, realistic looking animals. It's like the only rule, everything else is whatever, they can talk, they can sing, they can act like humans, etc, but they need to look like you are watching an animal documentary for some reason.

My theory is because of laziness... It is easier to capture the movement of an animal and its appearance... Than apart from the capture, animate it so that it looks like the original.

 

[Lambogenie]

I'll watch it but definitely totally missed opportunity to make a timeless 2D animation.

The CG is amazing, no doubt. But it's very boring.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

Impressive how they've still haven't learned from the critique. Just 0 expressive boring looking photorealistic animals it is then. So stupid.

I'm still shocked and disgusted by the realism of the fishes in the little mermaid... It was disgusting to see the real fishes.

 

[cash_longfellow]

I’m surprised they didn’t make Mufasa black, and Simba trans.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Lion king CGI realistic is exciting I think it’s planet earth meets lion king the animated series and todays generation is familiar with that CG dynamic.

 

[UltimaKilo]

If you can't have traditional hand crafted animation, you can do expressive characters with CGI too.

Can you imagine the crazy fanfare if they made a hand drawn animated movie today? I bet it would break the box office.

 

[Hawking Radiation]

I had no idea… I guess I live under a rock.

..on Mars?!

 

[Trogdor1123]

..on Mars?!

It would seem so

 

[Hawking Radiation]

It would seem so

Lol, come fetch me bro. I'm tired of this planet

 

[Toons]

They are keeping some elements of rhe direct to video sequels which is interesting.

No way this makes as much as the last one, but idk. 1.6 billion is nothing to scoff at.

Jungle book honestly had the animals all look pretty good, and I still think itd their best live action attempt.

 

[FeralEcho]

Every animal in this trailer looks as dead and soulless as the Disney board that greenlit this junk.

Bring back quality animation you hacks!

 

[FeralEcho]

So timeline-wise…

Mufasa: Lion King -> Lion King 1 first half -> Lion King 3 -> Lion King 1 end -> Timon and Pumbaa -> Lion King 2 first half -> Lion Guard first half -> Lion King 2 second half -> Lion Guard second half -> Lion Guard: RotR

The Zelda timeline seems like a masterclass right now...

 

[SoulTas]

Everyone does, but the fact is that it’s way too expensive to do nowadays.

Pretty sure state of the art cgi is more expensive than old school hand crafted animation. The time you are buying from all the expensive equipment alone is enough for the budget to skyrocket. I think the reason they don't do old school is because it's harder and more time consuming and can't be automated the same way cgi does when rendering the scenes. A traditional animation is bottlenecked because real people need to draw all that in-between stuff by hand.

 

[PanzerAzel]

Who is making the decision to green light these films?

I’m baffled. I’ve never seen something that so obviously doesn’t work at a fundamental level, and that should’ve been shot down at the pitch LONG before it ever got to pre-production. This realistic approach is simply incompatible with the necessary conveyance of emotion that is the underpinning of the entire experience. How can they not see this when it’s staring them straight in the face, do these people not watch their own films? Sure, the first film did well financially, which I’d argue was driven not by the film’s creative merits or the realistic angle, but instead by the nostalgia of an audience who adores the original and knew no better. I went and saw it for those reasons. Now that I’ve seen how it landed, I’ve absolutely no interest to see this one, and won’t, and predict this will do much worse at the box office. People love the original Lion King for a good reason, and Disney seems intent on doubling down in completely removing that aspect. It‘s beyond belief at what they’re doing here.

I’ve honestly never seen such cluelessness before. I don’t mind the CGI approach, but use a suitable art style that’s conducive to what the film needs to sell it. This isn’t it, and the last Lion King had no emotional gravitas or impact whatsoever.

What a waste.

 

[UltimaKilo]

Pretty sure state of the art cgi is more expensive than old school hand crafted animation. The time you are buying from all the expensive equipment alone is enough for the budget to skyrocket. I think the reason they don't do old school is because it's harder and more time consuming and can't be automated the same way cgi does when rendering the scenes. A traditional animation is bottlenecked because real people need to draw all that in-between stuff by hand.

Nah, hand drawn is significantly more expensive. Disney detailed this when they moved away from it. You no longer have to pay big salaries to artists to spend months doing one scene for the same scene you can flesh out in a week with CGI.

 

[John Bilbo]

The story presented in the original animated film really didn't need a prequel.

 

[Dr.Morris79]

As long as it's not another 90 minute advert for Beyoncé like that last fucking film I'd give it a go. Probably.

 

[BlackTron]

I'm pretty sure the remake's success is like 99% just being the second coming of Lion King which made such an unforgettable impact when it came out. Now that everyone got lured into the theater to watch Lion King again, will they be excited about another one in the same style?

Like I'm pretty sure Solo bombing wasn't even the movie being THAT bad, it was just the next film after Last Jedi. They see big numbers, but the bigger your numbers are on a lame movie, the more people you have trained to not give a shit about the next one.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

In addition to the trash CGI aesthetic...this feels completely wrong for the character.

In the original Lion King, the impression given is that Mufasa is the latest in a long line of kings, not some outsider who recently ascended and started a new kingdom.

Hell, here's what he says to Simba:

Simba...let me tell you something that my father told me. Look at the stars. The Great Kings of the Past look down on us from those stars.

The original film gives a sense of a long kingdom, a stable monarchy of the lions. It's such a farce that Disney can't handle that and has to try and make even Mufasa into another "outsider" or orphan.

 

[ThatStupidLion]

In addition to the trash CGI aesthetic...this feels completely wrong for the character.

In the original Lion King, the impression given is that Mufasa is the latest in a long line of kings, not some outsider who recently ascended and started a new kingdom.

Hell, here's what he says to Simba:



The original film gives a sense of a long kingdom, a stable monarchy of the lions. It's such a farce that Disney can't handle that and has to try and make even Mufasa into another "outsider" or orphan.

Cant have an imperialistic monarchy with royal entitlement these days.

The hero has to bootstrap from poverty

 

[jason10mm]

Nah, hand drawn is significantly more expensive. Disney detailed this when they moved away from it. You no longer have to pay big salaries to artists to spend months doing one scene for the same scene you can flesh out in a week with CGI.

Even if this is true, it sucks. I can go back and watch hand drawn animated films from DECADES ago and they still look beautiful, evocative, and as fresh as if they were made today.

But go fire up a CG film from even a decade ago and it looks like a cheap commercial. Go back earlier and it's ATROCIOUS in appearance, even if the story is good.

Obviously there is cheap low frame rate animation everywhere, but my point is the best 2D stuff is timeless, but even the best CG stuff will look dated in time.

 

[BlackTron]

Even if this is true, it sucks. I can go back and watch hand drawn animated films from DECADES ago and they still look beautiful, evocative, and as fresh as if they were made today.

But go fire up a CG film from even a decade ago and it looks like a cheap commercial. Go back earlier and it's ATROCIOUS in appearance, even if the story is good.

Obviously there is cheap low frame rate animation everywhere, but my point is the best 2D stuff is timeless, but even the best CG stuff will look dated in time.

In a way it's kind of like how 3D gaming seemed advanced at first, but as time went on 3D games aged far more poorly than the last gen of 2D titles. 3D had to mature through a rough phase that kept making it look dated and it's the same with CGI.

But as in 2D vs 3D gaming. 3D should never really fully replace 2D sprites in all applications. But Disney is trying to force the CG like back when 2D games couldn't get greenlit.

 

[gow3isben]

If the Lion King LA was actually decent it would broach 2 billi no cap its hype was massive

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The Walt Disney Company Turns Off Comments For 'Mufasa: The Lion King' After Massive Backlash

The Walt Disney Company turned off the comments for its latest trailer for Mufasa: The Lion King as numerous individuals shared their dislike of the trailer and the upcoming film.

thatparkplace.com

LMAO

 

[THE DUCK]

Bad enough it's not animated, but here's an idea disney, write something new that's actually good......

 

[Dacvak]

 

[SoulTas]

Nah, hand drawn is significantly more expensive. Disney detailed this when they moved away from it.

Is it though?

Because if we go by the most expensive to produce animated films (according to Wiki), the most expensive traditional 2D western animation film isn't even in the top 20 with a 140m budget vs 260m for the most expensive GCI animated film. Japanese traditional animated movies can't even come close at 53m from Studio Ghibli stuff, some of the most elaborate hand drawn movies. Also, even the most expensive western traditional animated film is heavy on CGI (Treasure Planet). Older stuff that don't feature as much CGI is not nearly at the same production cost level.

And since the original post about this was for the original Lion King (which features very few CGI scenes), here's the comparison between it and the remake:

Original, hand drawn movie: 45m
CGI Remake: 250m

So no, i don't think Disney was right when they said that or maybe it was only the case for the very early CGI films, for instance the original Toy Story film cost around 30m, which is lower than the 45m of The Lion King. But this was very quickly changed with A Bug's Life costing 120m...