Tomb Raider Forums  

Go Back   Tomb Raider Forums > General Forums > Arts and Entertainment

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 17-07-19, 02:32   #3701
Legends
Member
 
Legends's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 18,391
Default

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.
Legends is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-19, 03:11   #3702
Yeauxleaux
Member
 
Yeauxleaux's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,356
Default

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.
Yeauxleaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-19, 10:21   #3703
ggctuk
Member
 
ggctuk's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legends View Post
It's so stupid how Disney basically made The Lion King a shot-for-shot remake
It's not. It follows the same story but how can a shot-for-shot remake be half an hour longer, have different dialogue and have to have an entirely new musical score?
ggctuk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-19, 10:36   #3704
biscuits
Member
 
biscuits's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 5,958
Default

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.
biscuits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-19, 11:01   #3705
ggctuk
Member
 
ggctuk's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuits View Post
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.
The majority of them reportedly exist so Disney can keep the movie rights for them. I'm not sure exactly how this works with Disney-exclusive properties like The Lion King, though.

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.
ggctuk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-19, 11:28   #3706
Admles
Moderator
 
Admles's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,624
Default

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!
Admles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-19, 12:04   #3707
ggctuk
Member
 
ggctuk's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Admles View Post
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.
I think this was my biggest hangup about the casting - they didn't even ask Jeremy Irons (and he did imply that he would have returned had asked)

And they butchered Be Prepared too (the OST came out on the 11th)

Last edited by ggctuk; 17-07-19 at 12:05.
ggctuk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-19, 12:33   #3708
Legends
Member
 
Legends's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 18,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ggctuk View Post
It's not. It follows the same story but how can a shot-for-shot remake be half an hour longer, have different dialogue and have to have an entirely new musical score?
I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know, but every review I've read say that it's a shot for shot remake just with some altered stuff. The musical score is entirely "copied" from the old one and then they gave Beyonce a new song because of her starpower. It's not even very good. I mean, it's not bad either, just very forgettable like the entire soundtrack. I listened to the entire soundtrack several times now, and it just makes me want to listen to the original. The production of the music and acting just isn't top notch like it was in the original, and it shows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeauxleaux View Post
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.
I think making Ariel black is the most ridicules thing ever. If they wanted a black mermaid, just create a new character. How ****ing hard is that Disney? "Why can't Ariel be black" Because she's white, (and green) and it's not even really about skin color. It's about character design. Stay true to it. If Sega suddenly made Sonic green it wouldn't be Sonic anymore. We all know he's established as blue. Same goes for the colors of Ariel. She's a fictional character with an established look. Change it and it won't be Ariel anymore.

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.
Legends is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-19, 15:02   #3709
ggctuk
Member
 
ggctuk's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,405
Default

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.
ggctuk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-19, 15:23   #3710
SrDanielPonces
Member
 
SrDanielPonces's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,346
Default

Yeah, I'm also not really into having Ariel represented by a dark-skinned actress.

Apparently that's racism...?
SrDanielPonces is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 14:48.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Tomb Raider Forums is not owned or operated by CDE Entertainment Ltd.
Lara Croft and Tomb Raider are trademarks of CDE Entertainment Ltd.