17-07-19, 02:32 | #3701 |
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 18,391
|
It's so stupid how Disney basically made The Lion King a shot-for-shot remake, and with the other live action remakes they have tried to stay as close to the original characters look as possible, but with The Little Mermaid they just don't apply any of that. Let's change everything for political reasons. As if that's not bad enough, every single live action remake I've seen have either been bad, or considerably worse than the original. It's like they are all high budget TV movies with an watered down plot.
|
17-07-19, 03:11 | #3702 |
Member
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,356
|
Like I said I'm personally not so bothered by making Ariel black for this version for the reasons I stated before. What I'm really bothered by is the lack of imagination.
Why is everything being re-made or rebooted in the first place? Would it kill not just Disney, but all these producers in the media, to write some new stories for once instead of re-hashing the same ****? I'm sure if you dig deep enough, there's African or Afro-Caribbean mythology they could build a new black princess around. An new story we haven't seen before. They already did it once with Tiana, they can make another one. I seriously doubt many people would give a **** if they did that, creating a new character young black girls can relate to without erasing an older one. We also just heard they've cast another black woman to play a 007 agent in the place of James Bond. No doubt this will be some regressive SJW feminist-y ****, that's the vibe I got from what I saw. So we're gonna have a movie where the core fanbase are alienated, while the demographic you're trying to pander to are represented horribly (once again) as a stereotypical strong independant woman who don't need no man... who wins here? I'm just tired of what seems like some weird agenda to whip-up outrage and racial/political tension among people just for publicity. These producers damn well know this **** has that effect by now, they're doing it on purpose for some bizarre reason I don't get it. Last edited by Yeauxleaux; 17-07-19 at 03:20. |
17-07-19, 10:21 | #3703 |
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,405
|
|
17-07-19, 10:36 | #3704 |
Member
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 5,958
|
The lion king movie looks like an Animal Planet documentary with added voice acting and musical numbers.
I just don't get why these movies exist. They're so cynical and clearly only there as cash grabs to feed off our nostalgia. |
17-07-19, 11:01 | #3705 | |
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,405
|
Quote:
After The Jungle Book, though, The Lion King was the only one I thought was a safe bet. In principle, I'm torn: I don't think the movie needed to exist, and I wish it had done some more original stuff. On the other hand, it will do well enough for Disney to make a sequel - and that represents a unique opportunity to wipe the slate clean and do something new with these characters after all. |
|
17-07-19, 11:28 | #3706 |
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,624
|
Saw Lion King today, really enjoyed it overall.
Scars voice was bad casting though (and I really like Chiwetel Ejiofor as an actor), but it’s hard to live up to the performance of Jeremy Irons. Beyonce is meh, but thankfully not much of her. Seth Rogen is brilliant, as is Billy Eichner. Animation is just AMAZING, there are times you can’t tell tell it’s not real. Lots of nostalgia moments, and songs, and Mufasa death scene.. UGH DEM FEELS! Better than BatB remake, not as good as Aladdin, but enjoyable nonetheless! |
17-07-19, 12:04 | #3707 | |
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,405
|
Quote:
And they butchered Be Prepared too (the OST came out on the 11th) Last edited by ggctuk; 17-07-19 at 12:05. |
|
17-07-19, 12:33 | #3708 | ||
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 18,391
|
Quote:
Quote:
I agree with the rest of it. Where is the original stories for these black characters? Changing an already existing character is the worst way to do it. That's just blackwasing a character for obvious political reasons, and it's just wrong. And is black people happy about getting white hand me downs instead of new original characters? I don't even want these remakes because they can't capture the magic from the original films anyway. So everything is basically a redundant mess. Nobody wins in that James Bond situation. If they wanted to create a female James Bond series, they could just create a new character, but do they really have to replace James Bond with that? To me, it seems like a stupid idea. It's not enough to change an existing character, they want to remove the original one completely. Last edited by Legends; 17-07-19 at 12:37. |
||
17-07-19, 15:02 | #3709 |
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,405
|
I'm sorry to have to disagree with you on all counts there, especially regarding the soundtrack which for me works amazingly as a compliment to the original, not a replacement. It's quite concert-like in its arrangement. Just listening to Zimmer describe his process shows he not only still understands some of his best, most personal material, but still has something to say with it. Make no mistake: this is still a personal score for him. That shows.
https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/...source=twitter Yes, the songs are largely hit-and-miss, but I think implying that Zimmer didn't give it his all is disingenuous. My personal view on the soundtrack is that there are enough parts which are actually stronger than the original. I put together a 'composite' soundtrack of the two which reflects that. I have my issues with some of the material, and all of the songs don't measure up to their original counterparts. In particular I will say that Be Prepared seems to be a late addition (originally it was not to be included according to reports) and it shows with how haphazard its style is compared to the original. As for the shot-for-shot claim, it's not shot-for-shot if they change it, and that is not the criticism the critics have been levelling at it anyway. They've been saying it's by-the-numbers, which is a fair, valid criticism in of itself and one I somewhat agree with (actually, I was hoping that they would delve into the backstories a bit more), but that's not them saying shot-for-shot. There's a distinct difference there: shot-for-shot is exactly what it means: the film would be identical in structure, dialogue, even script if it were shot-for-shot. It's 'paint-by-numbers' because it's using the same story structure while changing the dialogue, the order of scenes, etc. I feel like worse remakes got more of a pass. Beauty And The Beast was far more egregious on that front, for instance. I will also add that the critics' reviews are not worth what people seem to think they are regardless - it's up to each individual to view any movie through their own lens. Assuming the critics are right is to give them the power to say 'I'll give you your opinion'. Just like you can disregard what I say. I'm not aiming to change your mind on whether you think the film is good or bad here. Do I think it will live up to the original? No. I'm going to be honest here. The answer is no. But it does represent something that everybody else seems to be missing: a blank slate for these characters. Like I said: subsequent media has made a mess of the original film's continuity. I will say this about Aladdin: I haven't seen it. I may check it out once it gets on home media, but I think the one thing it did do better than The Lion King is quite a fundimental change for one of the characters: changing the character of the Genie. Then again, that had to be done: that character was written for Robin Williams and Will Smith needed to make it his own. It looks like he succeeded on that front. Last edited by ggctuk; 17-07-19 at 15:16. |
17-07-19, 15:23 | #3710 |
Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,346
|
Yeah, I'm also not really into having Ariel represented by a dark-skinned actress.
Apparently that's racism...? |
Thread Tools | |
|
|