Uncanny Valley and Photorealism: The Lion King (2019)

Let’s talk uncanny valley and photorealism! No, unfortunately (or fortunately) this is not about the movie musical Cats, instead it’s about different kinda cats - The Lion King 2019 remake. The original 1994 Disney animated version is easily one of my favourite movies of all time. This one.. not so much. I try my best to explain why while also acknowledging the achievements of the movie. Thoughts expressed are just my opinion! Comment below and let me know what you think.
Twitter: / tahkawa
Movies shown or mentioned:
The Lion King (1994) & The Lion King (2019)
Cats (2019)
Ex Machina (2014)
Paddington (2014) & Paddington 2 (2017) These are classics! Watch them!
Mary Poppins Returns (2018)
Sonic The Hedgehog (2020)
I Am Legend (2007)
IT Chapter Two (2019)
The Cat in the Hat (2003)
The Uncanny Valley: The Original Essay by Masahiro Mori - spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...
Mashahiro Mori - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masahir...)
Chiwetel Ejiofor Sky News interview - / 1151232748587143168
‘The Lion King’ Review: Disney’s Remake Is a Disastrous Plunge into the Uncanny Valley by David Ehrlich - www.indiewire.com/2019/07/the...
Into the uncanny valley: 80 robot faces ranked by creepiness - www.newscientist.com/article/...

[@TheSiddhiDesai]

"For a movie that looks so life-like, it also feels like the life has been sucked out of it," basically every live-action remake these days. Well said.

[@TheDiplomat27]

I disagree. Having the animals emote like in the cartoon would have ruined the photorealism because it would have made the real animals look fake since real animals don't emote like that. I actually prefer this remake over the cartoon. It still had all the heart and soul of the original but with better graphics and stunning visuals. The cartoon to me just feels too silly and childish. It's great for kids but I am an adult. I prefer the remake that looks more adult.

[@TheSiddhiDesai]

@@TheDiplomat27 I think the video gives a Paddington as a pretty decent example of having photorealistic animals while still making them emote. Of course, you can have your preferences but the point made in this video is still pretty valid.

[@TheDiplomat27]

@@TheSiddhiDesai Sure. It is just my opinion. Movies are subjective.

[@skywise8]

@@TheDiplomat27 the cartoon is "too silly and childish"? are we even looking at the same movie? I am very glad that I'm not the kind of adult that sees animation and thinks "how childish and silly". if you like the remake better, more power to you. The Chronicles Of Narnia(2005) did a pretty decent job of having a CGI lion that both looks like a lion and was capable of emoting.

[@Soulxstar]

@@TheDiplomat27 Bro you're watching a movie with talking lion portrying the greatest Shakespeare's play, none of it goes in the "like real animals" thing. it's a movie where characters don't emote and doesn't emphathize with the audience because of it, i heard that argument everytime and i still don't get it. Why do you want a movie without emotion but good looking? Just because look good? That's shallow, as words of George Lucas: "Special effects without story Is a pretty boring thing" and that's what this is, it's just Special effects in a Disney classic, with (may i say) some odd decisions put on it

[@cman4740]

No, no, no, no, no. They copped out big time. Remember Aslan from the chronicles of Narnia? He's literally a lion! Better facial animations there too.

[@Dustbowler49]

And that was over 10 years ago

[@stephenwells6434]

Same company. Same artistic medium. Same species of character. 14 years ago. Significantly better.

[@Tyler_W]

@@user-wk1do5ij9q while I will always sing the praises of using a combination of practical and digital effects when and where appropriate, that's not why Aslan and the other animals worked, not the way in which it was being referenced. It worked because although they tried to make Aslan look like a real lion, which he basically did, they used reasonable human-like expressions to help convey relatable emotion. It wasn't "realistic" in the sense that actual lions don't emote like that, but it was still believable because it utilized stylized realism in such a way that made both the human emotions and the image of a physical lion believable at the same time. If you're not going to give a non-humun character spoken dialog, the character has to convey the physical expression of emotion that the dialog is trying to convey, otherwise it simply isn't believable to the human mind, which is when you experience the uncanny valley.

[@splendidpheasant9192]

and that was over 10 years ago or something too

[@BardockSkywalker]

Yeah, How Did They Focked Up Something They Succeded *YEARS* Ago?!? *HOW?!?!?*

[@mol9842]

Instead of photorealism, they should have gone with stylized realism like with Aslan in Narnia, he was realistic but still expressive

[@cavaliothorson7755]

I 100% agree, then the lack of vivid colors could be forgiven at least.

[@Skye_Writer]

Not to mention that the animals in the latest "Jungle Book" remake got their emotions across without it looking odd. I was prepared to dislike it, and instead I really dug the new JB and how much more we got to see of Bagheera, and how lifelike he appeared while not losing his personality.

[@SearchScripture]

And to think Disney also did Aslan.

[@nectarinn3]

@@SearchScripture uhh they didn't? Pretty sure it was someone else, could be wrong tho.

[@FiveOClockTea]

@@nectarinn3 it was a co-production of Walden media, Disney and lamp post productions 😊 and yeah, I looked it up 😅

[@ilo2224]

“Doing justice to the original” would’ve been a digital/sound clean up and a 25th anniversary theatrical re-release.

[@andrewchung2940]

Theatrical re-release was how Walt Disney kept his classic films alive in the public conscience, whether they were hits or flops. He intended his films to be timeless, be entertaining to audiences for many years to com. But films back then were not available outside of theatre and how were future generations to experience them? Re-release! And there's also the fact Lion King was re-released in 3D in 2011 and guess what? That was a big hit! Which goes on to show that the 2019 Lion King was a completely unnecessary, unjustified cash grab that wastes the talents behind it, not to mention the potential of photorealistic CGI.

[@Butter-Milk]

@@andrewchung2940 Yeah, theatrical re releases are cool.

[@John231984]

@@andrewchung2940 I went to that re-relase. I took my niece who was 9 at the time. Guess what? She loved it!

[@rynfornow3411]

The movie has less colors than real documentaries...

[@niamhhoran]

not one decent sunset in the whole thing!

[@princessthyemis]

Yeah!! It's SO BLAND AND DULL! what kid would be entertained by this?! The original all the way.

[@jotakyininoo2758]

Lol

[@whiteoutwolf6131]

Its in a fucking savana

[@joshgroban5291]

@@whiteoutwolf6131 so? The sun still exists. There are documentaries where the grass is more green, and the Lions and water have more colors. If you Google Lions, they're not even as grey as in the remake. You can even see the color of their eyes from a couple feet away. The fact that it's in a savanna is even more reason why especially the plants with greenery should be a more powerful green, since there's so much more sun Speaking of documentaries, THIS IS A MOVIE. It being in a savanna isn't even an excuse for why the colors are bland. If a movie can't even be entertaining with it's visuals, why does it exist.

[@UltimateKyuubiFox]

The thing that really gets me is you can look at photos of lion cubs being INCREDIBLY expressive with their faces. The animators just decided not to do it. It’s a really weird choice.

[@missdeejay]

So, you've seen lion Cubs laugh? In what parallel universe?

[@WaterResistance]

The animators didn't decide anything. The client, Disney did. Animators are just tools to achieve directors vision.

[@Metroid4ever]

The thing is though, humans project these feelings onto animals which otherwise lack the capability of understanding or knowing what emotions even are. An animal does what it does out of reaction, less of thinking beforehand or after the fact, or stopping to recognize and analyze why they react the way they do or attempt to change how they react in the future; it's a highly advanced ability exclusive to humans if I'm not mistaken.

[@TheJuliana0901]

maybe that kind of animation with the hyperrealism is out of reach? idk

[@RM-of2oz]

A lion could literally roar and here come fans “a lion is so expressive with their faces” like they may have little expressions here and there but their not the best animal that emote emotions on their faces

[@yeoboseyoitsrebel-metaloid]

"Lions can't emote" Yeah, tell me that again after watching The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe.

[@iclynnx]

Just watching videos of real lions show so much more emotion. When lions fight, you can see their anger, their excitement... When they're wounded, you can see their pain. When they're sad, you can see it. When cubs playfight for fun, you can see their enjoyment and happiness. Also, ever seen pet cats and dogs? Their faces show lots of emotion but never looks odd!

[@kittylovesfilms]

THIS!!!

[@iclynnx]

@Torrin Nicholson It was an example of animals who show emotions through their face without looking odd.

[@LivingInChrysalis]

🙌🙌

[@Vioven]

@Maya The Cat [Sans’s Wife And Girlfriend] That's body language. Not facial expression.

[@Mellowbaton]

Around 4:40 , when the interviewer accidentally calls the original version the 'Disney version', I think it really hits home how these live-action remakes simply don't capture the magic and creative vision of their source material.

[@thema1998]

The interviewer clearly made a mistake but it was an accurate way to describe the original Lion King.

[@ecp4500]

The reference is to Kimba, the white lion. Which is the original that disney stole.

[@shay3929]

@@ecp4500 not surprised it was stolen

[@andreyu5640]

Omg ,it was just a normal mistake , My God, so overdramatic.

[@andreyu5640]

@@ecp4500 Stolen? It has nothing to do with The Lion King's main themes

[@SuperEbony5]

Rocket raccoon is a good example of a photo realistic animal with good emoting.

[@lordbeerus462]

Exactly

[@Waterbug1591]

that's because he's quite cartoony to be honest. its facial muscle tone and movement resemble that of a human

[@dapranak]

@@Waterbug1591 the lion king 1994 is a cartoon, not a documentary. -_- this is a fantasy story not shit like realistic story. why making lion king 2019 like a documentary ? dumbest decide crap and do crap. rocket raccon from guardian of the galaxy is realistic just what he need to be, but with fantasy.

[@lolkayleen2757]

YESS

[@uhoh6706]

There’s also Aslan. That’s a lion that actually shows emotion

[@El_Andru]

Everything is brown and unsaturated. It sucks. The lighting is always the same boring real sunlight. The animated one had so much of nice colors, also depending on the emotion of the scene everything got tinted a certain way to make the scene memorable and iconic. WHATS SO SPECIAL ABOUT WATCHING BORING REAL LIONS WITH TERRIBLE LIPSYNC?!

[@14478100]

Yes!! The range of lighting directions, colours, warmths, vividness, softenesses, choice uses of greys versus strong blacks in the original were not disposable. They were part of the emotion, the visual story-telling. Plus they've still not got night-time down yet in Disney CGI. It just looks like someone turned up 'blue'.

[@Ryan-pg1tw]

You should be more respectful

[@El_Andru]

@@Ryan-pg1tw about?

[@krankarvolund7771]

Totally agree, I mean look at the stampede scene, when Scar watch Simba, in the animated, he is dark, the background is dark, it's visceral, he's the bad guy watching his plan suceeding. In the remake, it's just a ill-looking lion passing on a rock. I'm kind of sorry for him for looking so ill, not terrified ^^'

[@El_Andru]

@@krankarvolund7771 Bitch that lizard from Planet Earth 2 that ran from the snakes got me more invested than this million budget movie.

[@alexman378]

I don’t get why people’s defense is “well, if it’s going for a realistic approach, lions can’t emote, so that was good on them”. Yeah, they can’t speak or sing either, but I didn’t see that being an issue...

[@andresgonzalez887]

yeah but some Lions on movies and games did emote, like Aslan on Narnia or Danthelion on the witcher 3

[@alexman378]

@@andresgonzalez887 Yeah, but Aslan is different. They took the right approach when it came to him, but he's not photoreal. His eyes and expressions moved like a human's face would. He could emote, while they took the facial expressions away from the lions in the 2019 Lion King. Aslan would be what I'd model my version after if I was in charge of the remake.

[@Xehanort10]

People using that excuse apparently think a film with talking lions is realistic.

[@Xehanort10]

@@andresgonzalez887 The difference with Aslan is that he's a magical lion so it makes sense that he'd have the ability to speak. Whereas The Lion King lions are normal lions in the plains of Africa and only have voices because it'd be boring having a bunch of silent lions just prowling about while the film's events happened.

[@doremilayles]

"The movie looks so life-like" My mom grew up in Kenya, which is where the species of lion used in both versions of The Lion King are from. She walked out of this movie because the Kenya in this movie is nothing like the Kenya she grew up in. So my question is this: if they wanted it to look "life-like," why wouldn't they want to use a true Kenyan safari?

[@possumhead2812]

Bc all Disney remakes have to use an ugly gray color pallet. How will people know it's supposed to look realistic if it doesn't also look hideous?

[@andrewchung2940]

@Green Mills1) Lion King never specifies its time period. 2) Kenya of thousands of years ago I'm sure would have looked even more wild, colorful, and vibrant than Kenya of today because of little to no pollution. And you were saying?

[@ah_here_we_go_again5310]

Andrew Chung this comment is so beautiful 😭

[@andreydoronin6995]

@@possumhead2812 I know it's an old comment but I feel like greyish color scheme is generally overused nowadays. It's like people think that if something looks drab and dull it should be realistic

[@magenreed3579]

Scar just shouting “be prepared” was the biggest disappointment by far to me.

[@angelpagtakhan]

Magen Reed it is because the hyenas in the remake are not that stupid (because in real life hyenas are smart). Unlike in the original, the “be prepared” song is basically scar explaining his plan to the “stupid” hyenas... so in short it was cut off because it is inappropriate already... but yeah I still like the og more hehe.

[@DarkcIoud1111]

Mine was Mufasa appearing to Simba after his death. In the original it is this big emotional moment of Simba finally willing to take a stand after Rafiki gives him a bump on the head. In the new version it is just clouds.

[@annabellavictoria44]

Honestly I hated his delivery of the ‘long live the king’ line. In the original it was just the perfect contrast from the mood of the scene (chaotic, loud, fast vs a quiet whisper sort of growl). In the remake it was like a desperate scream and it really took me out of the emotional build up of the scene.

[@lilpp4791]

@@angelpagtakhan wtf? Bitch no one cares if they are smart or not it's all about the music and entertainment, and the remake was so boring

[@kashim4351]

@@angelpagtakhan being smart doesn't mean you can immediately know other peoples plans, and its not about making everything "real" its about entertainment.

[@Goabnb94]

1994 Simba sees Mufasa falling: *"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"* 2019 Simba sees Mufasa falling: "Noooo....."

[@biglmaowski6509]

Sonic: ehhhh...meow?

[@feduaura3141]

Yes. In 1994 version you could feel that something awful, terrible and dangerous is gonna happen in few seconds. Maybe it was Simba's frightened snout and camera close by; maybe it was slow motion when antilopes (?) were arriving.

[@user-kw7jb6gw6u]

@@dapranak "Dysney"

[@amberthebeecat566]

*_meows for milk_*

[@sirhighroller9036]

The new one was gay as hell😅😅

[@Marenks]

Can't wait for a photorealistic Finding Nemo!

[@hexyko4850]

That would be awful lmao

[@lunayoshi]

All the fish just have wide-eyed blank stares the whole movie. You know it'd happen. A+ directing.

[@sirhighroller9036]

😂😂😂😂

[@ForestFireNumber21]

ew

[@justahuman9273]

😂😂😂

[@ChrisHanline]

"Can You Feel The Love This Afternoon" That one got me. 😆😆

[@captaincrunch784]

Elton John pointed that out too! LOL

[@holiggan2008]

Omg, how can they messed that up?! The song says "tonight"! 😂😂😂 My theory is that Beyoncé was only available for the voice over work in the afternoons, and some took it a step too far 😂😂😂

[@SilverLion09]

The Polygon review said; 'There's a lot of craft in this movie, but there's no art'. I think it sums it up pretty well. On a side note, it's interesting that they didn't show lions talking in a trailer. So they KNEW, that it looks ridiculous.

[@sailiealquadacil1284]

I was already creeped out by the trailer. I could tell the lions were fake, and refused to watch the movie as a result.

[@Tyler_W]

They actually did, it's just that you sometimes can't tell through the facial animations that the animals are opening their mouths to speak.

[@SilverLion09]

Tyler Worsham 😂🤣😰😖😭 (I started laughing but then I cried)

[@YujiUedaFan]

I wish they gave all the dialogue to Timon, Pumbaa and Rafiki, because they're the only characters capable of emoting.

[@princessthyemis]

Wow you're right!!!

[@HisNeverland]

It's so funny that they're hiding behind "lions can't emote" like Aslan wasn't here emoting 10+ years ago!

[@itsnowonder9856]

Aslan wasnt a real lion, it makes no sense to compare him in this way. I do agree that they should've animted them way more, they looked stiff and bored.

[@HisNeverland]

@@itsnowonder9856 no, aslan is real, i've met him

[@joemann7971]

@@itsnowonder9856 Neither is Mufasa or Simba. Lions and the rest of the animals don't behave that way.

[@Mysikrysa]

Real animals were emoting before Aslan.

[@katieboler5806]

HisNeverland Aslan didn’t sacrifice himself on the stone table for this crap!

[@angeloffish]

The bit where Scar kills Mufasa is not supposed to be more gentle, less brutal. It is supposed to be brutal. That is the point. It really bugs me when he says this. You are meant to feel you have had your heart ripped out and feels all these emotions.

[@easolinas1233]

It's a friggin' MURDER. Why do they want it to be "less brutal"?

[@kinhamid9665]

Money + Nostalgia + "Realism" - Soul = This Monstrosity

[@MegaZam89]

Kin Hamid I feel you bro

[@Daikon_Micucci]

He said the soul was there, just not the expressions.

[@qualifiedarmchaircritic]

Also, can we talk about how they made Scar look like he had a disease and was dirty all the time? Honestly Scar would NEVER

[@PyramidXSlender]

@Melly Reed Why did Kovu stay then?

[@TheAncestors1738]

@Melly Reed Not always; The average is 2. Have you ever heard of the Mapogo Lions?

[@kittyfiend]

@Melly Reed Prides can have multiple males, called a coalition. Brothers will team up and protect a pride together.

[@YujiUedaFan]

@@PyramidXSlender Kovu is a juvenile/cub and they stay until the adult males have had enough of them, usually when their mane starts to grow into a Mohawk.

[@princessthyemis]

Yeah, his character here is so visually unappealing!!!

[@astro_princess8270]

PLEASE TALK ABOUT CATS (2019) WHEN IT COMES OUT

[@TropeAnatomy]

probably will! Looks crazy, weirdly excited

[@astro_princess8270]

@@TropeAnatomy same!

[@moustik31]

that trailer made me so uncomfortable. I felt creeped out and I didn't even know it was a trope

[@astro_princess8270]

@Layla Cornelia i saw a review on the lion king by Stevereviews it's pretty good !

[@astro_princess8270]

@@moustik31 its like they didn't know what size actual cats are in real life? scary as hell

[@srslydoatm9251]

Looking at the thumbnail, I just realized something. The Simba in the old cartoon told me what his personality was like! The stance, the eyes, the everything! CGI Simba tells me nothing about what he's about! They might as well have gotten real animals with photoshoped mouths or something

[@andrewchung2940]

This is why I cannot buy into the defense that people would make about this movie, that it's supposed to be "realistic". Well if you are making a story about talking animals, the premise alone already inherently defeats the idea of realism. If you were going to be so slavish about realism in Lion King, then the entire story should have been rewritten from the ground-up to be like a nature documentary (not that I would want another remake!) Second, they didn't even do realism right. You can look up any nature documentary or images of real animals and you will easily see that they can emote through the noise they make, the body languages, and yes, by their facial expressions. The realism was just a hopelessly misguided mandate to excuse the existence of the remake and only reveals an underlying issue: animation has no real respect in Hollywood or the American society.

[@teawrecks1243]

Ooh boy, can you imagine how uncanny-valley Flounder and Sebastian are gonna be in the Little Mermaid remake 😂😂😂

[@lewisjones4158]

Going to be awful 😂

[@c863168]

Not to mention Mulan oh wait.. mushu isnt in the new one apperantly

[@justsomehumanonyoutube7166]

@@c863168 because mulan is an actual historic person,mushu is not real.

[@NaokoMarie]

aaron_Mysterio616 Mysterio well the Disney Mulan is the Mulan that a majority of people know better, so even though no, he isn't from the real story, he was probably one of the highlights of the Mulan everyone knows.

[@E4439Qv5]

I think Disney should get Will Smith to do Mushu in live-action Mulan. Practice makes perfect, guys.

[@aminacunningham146]

The thing that bothers me when people say lions don’t emote is THAT THEY DO look up pictures their faces may not be as exaggerated as those in the animated version but they’re not blank

[@thongdo9809]

Disney literally already made a very expressive lion before in narnia

[@missdeejay]

@@thongdo9809 Narnia isn't a Disney film

[@kiharapata]

@@missdeejay the first two were

[@999love20]

Thong Do that’s still considered “stylized realism” while the lion king animals are just “realism” based

[@matthewbennett9928]

They emote in the way real animals do. Simba emoted the way my cat does and I found it emotional.

[@Ominous_Odyssey]

I think Aslan from Narnia is the best possible example of how the lion king remake could have been if they sacrificed just a bit of realism for facial expression. Especially with the scene where he says “Do not cite the deep magic to me witch! I was there when it was written..” the emotional power from his voice actor was played out perfectly by the amount of emotion and expression you can see on his face. You can really see the worried look he gets after he bargains his life for Edwin’s. You can see his anger when he leaps at the witch in the last fight. While Aslan is not entirely realistic and anyone who has seen even just a picture of lion before can tell that he is a CGI animated lion, he is not so unfamiliar and unrealistic that that it makes the movie any less enjoyable. And the facial emotion that he does show Is not so much that it disrupts the realism of his face, but not too little that the emotion from the voice actors falls flat. Truly, I think the LK remake would be more widely enjoyed if more effort had been focused on the facial emotions and both facial and body expressions of the characters. Especially for all of the lion characters.

[@Nadiaputriangginita]

Even Stuart Little is more expressive than those photorealistic animals in 2019

[@hexyko4850]

Agreed. They did a good job and it was ages ago. Technology evolves.

[@irain4927]

Reporter:Are you concerned Mufasa's death is scar a whole new generation of kids? Everyone,watching the scene:*laughing at Mufasa falling or Simba's squeaky voice*

[@sirhighroller9036]

Bro when mufasa fell in the new one I laughed so hard and scar literally pimped slapped him😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@Chromaggia]

Seriously I felt like such an asshole. I completely lost it when Mufasa fell like a ragdoll and it zoomed in dramatically on Simba's lifeless face as he screamed in terror

[@deborahv.3402]

The thing is: who is this movie target audience? If it is kids I need to see a poll where they show them the original one (1994) and this one (2019) and then let they chose which one they prefer. That's the ultimate test.

[@El_Andru]

Dont. Kids are fucking dumb. But they have Netflix. Just show them the cartoon one at home and save yourself a waste of money experience on the cinema.

[@bassplayertaylor6983]

That's the thing. Adults ARE the target audience. They're cashing in on the nostalgia of adults who now have their own kids, who they'll take to see the movie with them. The kids don't care at all, they'd be just as happy seeing The Secret Life of Pets. In fact I just today heard a kid speak as excitedly about The Secret Life of Pets and the upcoming Angry Birds movie as she did for The Lion King just a moment before. Kids will watch pretty much any movie about animals and love it.

[@robynofrye4311]

@@bassplayertaylor6983 Exactly what I thought! They want to sell these tickets not to the kids but to the parents, who grew up with the Lion King (same as Pokemon Games now targeting grown ups aswell). Kids don't make that decision...

[@chrisossu2070]

I liked Son of the Mask when it first came out. I can corroborate from personal experience that kids are stupid.

[@mcamurray]

It was meant for people who were kids when the original came out, and also happen to have kids now. I certainly didn't enjoy it as much as he original, but I still liked it because I just like The Lion King. I'd like to see the original animation with some of the changes and added scenes from the new one.

[@LauraBow]

The weird thing is that I've seen actual cats show more emotion...

[@jupiterkelthuzad7289]

Me too. Honestly, they just seem really stiff throughout the clips i've seen. Sadly I haven't been able to see it though.

[@MegaZam89]

Laura Bow I think they overdid “realism “ Simba even won’t roll up for the scare of the stampede he’s just fine with it in the cgi version

[@lumiauroras6741]

Remember Guardians of Ga'hoole? The movie with realistic looking owls? They did a pretty good job with emotions and overall atmosphere of the movie.

[@Mysikrysa]

Or Guardians of Galaxy with realistic Rocket Racoon who is also emotinally expresive and doesn´t look weird.

[@YourCrazyDolphin]

Having read the books beforehand, I was always a little bothered by that movie. It used the same names and locales, but otherwise was a completely different story. Though that is mostly just me spoiled by how brutal the book got probably.

[@lumiauroras6741]

@@YourCrazyDolphin I read only one because I couldn't get my hands on the other parts. But yes, they're completely different. It never bothered me though...

[@YourCrazyDolphin]

@@lumiauroras6741 It only covered I think the first few books, but I'm pretty picky with this things. It's one thing to adapt, but if you're gonna use the name of a series then make something completely different... Why even associate with the series to begin?

[@lumiauroras6741]

@@YourCrazyDolphin Yeah, but that's how it usually is with adaptations. I read only the first book, but I can feel the differences.

[@carrl8832]

I remember what they did with the dragon in the Hobbit. I know dragons are fantasy beings but we do have somewhat of a protrayal in our minds of what a 'real' one would look like. And when they used Benedict's facial emotes and body movements they blended them perfectly with that of the giant lizard. And they insistrd upon that ONLY after seeing Ben's performance, because initially they wanted to go with full cgi dragon emotions and the whole deal. So... i think that is another example of success.

[@carrl8832]

@Kyrielle Atrinati yes!! Totally!

[@ladydixon9651]

There's something about hearing human voices coming out of these realistic lions that really creeps me out

[@bee-uv8ge]

Yeah. If they wanted it to be realistic they should’ve have done no voices. Only roars and other animal sounds.

[@ladydixon9651]

@@bee-uv8ge Yeah. Or, they could have gone all in on narration - Perhaps have Sir David Attenborough be the narrator. It would probably be a more "real" way to tell the story and certainly more creative than what we got.

[@Mindless206]

I think they shouldve done it the way they did the voices in Homeward Bound how they had voices but the mouths didnt move

[@ladydixon9651]

@@Mindless206 True, that could have also worked. Would the songs still work in that case? Probably not if they kept the character's faces so blank and their bodies so stiff

[@Mindless206]

@@ladydixon9651 that's true, so really they needed to mix in some emotions in the animals. Otherwise do the narration thing or cut out the songs

[@cath7767]

they should have just filmed the broadway show version

[@mariamatedei]

It should be a 2d or silly3d animated movie :/

[@cath7767]

@@mariamatedei the broadway version is surprisingly amazing. it's beautiful to look at especially with the interesting and creative costumes.

[@happychaosofthenorth]

In a way, the Broadway version 'ruined' the movie for me, because it was so amazing. "Shadowland" is probably my favourite Disney song, and another favourite was "The Madness of King Scar" (though later versions of the show cut that song significantly, which was disappointing). I would've loved to see that on the big screen, and it should be available (at least eventually) to those who can't afford to see the Broadway show or touring show (I only saw the touring shows and those are expensive). Long story short, I agree.

[@fiorefiore9910]

Exactly! Having people instead of animated lions in the live action would have allowed a different take on the story while still remaining faithful to what made the original special

[@cutie3638]

I said the same thing. Have the Broadway cast perform it one time live for ABC. The Lion King play especially is amazing. I've seen it twice already and I can't wait to see it again.

[@belagrolaub8746]

Just watching this little snippet of Mufasa's death made me fucking cry, THAT'S how great the emotional impact is. I didn't even bother with the remake.

[@leopold621]

also like i know cats and lions arent the same but. cats can emote. not in the way we do but still in a familiar enough way that we understand theyre emoting Something, cat owners especially. real distressed cats still look obviously distressed in their body language and even faces. they could have just studied cat emoting also you mentioned this wasnt an animal documentary and thats true animal documentaries are emotional as hell

[@AntimonyxAngel]

I was just thinking this! Even if they didn't want "animated" or "cartoon-y" expressions, they could have still exaggerated natural feline emotes and body language without the animation looking fake Their EARS for heaven's sake could have been used way more. Subtle with more impact.

[@edoboleyn]

leopold621 Yeah, I spent 90% of Homeward Bound crying precisely because I’m just tuned into cats and the appearance of distress in cats freaks me out! (Sad dogs too.)That said, I don’t know if the way cats emote would hold up for lions. After all, those signs are subtle and, as a devoted cat lover whose feline overlord is sitting on my legs right now and monitoring all my internet activity, I know we cat people* see a lot more emotion in cats than others (read: psychopaths who don’t like cats) might. * When I say cat people, I mean people who love cats. Not whatever the hell is going on in the new “Cats” trailer.

[@guardiansoulblade2673]

Aslan from the Chronicles of Narnia movies looked better and had more expression that did not make you feel like you looking at the uncanny valley, and that was years ago!

[@CarloNassar]

Not to mention that the first two were *by* Disney.

[@phoenixkh93]

heck I can look at my family cat and see the range of emotions on his face if he's scared, excited, guilty or contented. A cat could have easily been used as a reference so that the emotions looked real but not too exaggerated

[@niamhhoran]

I keep saying this. The domestic cat has no problem emoting. Making the lions eyes a fraction bigger, to look a tiny bit more like a domestic cat, would have made a huge difference. Cat videos are popular because cats have such expressive faces.

[@dragonofepics7324]

Ursa when Pixar was researching to make finding Nemo they studied the faces of dogs to figure out how to make the fish emote well.

[@jgriffin9084]

@@dragonofepics7324 good lord. Now I'm thinking about a "live action" Finding Nemo...

[@choreomaniac]

This is not an example of uncanny valley but of mismatch between audio and visuals. Uncanny valley is a visual phenomenon and pertains to humans because we are hardwired to notice the smallest detail of other humans since we are social animals. A corpse is very similar in appearance to a living human yet it was important for survival to tell the difference. A moving corpse is terrifying and that is what a lot of the uncanny valley robots evoke. Here, the visuals look fine. There is no uncanny valley. They don’t look like taxidermy animals brought to life. That’s not the problem. The problem was the choice of photorealistic animals. They either had to make them emote in an unnatural way or have flat vocal performances or have the mismatch. It was no win.

[@redjader]

As a student of psychology, I completely agree with you.

[@choreomaniac]

redjader it is uncanny, but it’s not a valley but a dead end. With the uncanny valley, you can push through to the other side and get perfect realism. But here, there is no greater realism that will save it. It’s just a jarring mismatch between realistic animals which either cannot emote or humans aren’t equipped with the ability to interpret the expressions and emotional, nuanced voice acting. It’s like stone faced people saying they are laughing out loud.

[@hangfried9429]

More of an uncanny pit.

[@MegaZam89]

I think the uncanny valley used here is the gap between what it should look like and what humans “feel or perceive like” terminator was more human than real robots because was a real actor so you could even empathize with a machine(and was the goal of the movie in terminator 2 imho) than think the real human like robots we just spot they are fake, now think avatar... they are cgi mixed actors they aren’t real but we feel them real(more anyway than some Star Wars hologram dead actors). Here we have animals that are not even like real animals on the emotional side because we can empathize our pets but no this Simba cub here just a random lion cub fine with a stampede fine with his fathers dead and so on... if you think a dog left outside it will cry and you will see in it’s way of “interpreting” the emotions what it’s up to (same goes for cats) so why if there was so much effort the gap between real or “empathize” and “fake” or at least “epic work of cgi but looks like stuffed animals” is so evident?

[@junebug3354]

it's not a not win though cuz aslan

[@YuubiTimberwolf]

I saw a gif of a male lion, lying on the ground, looking up at a approaching lioness with such love and admiration it was really touching. And they said lions are not expressive, my ass.

[@Mysikrysa]

In every ZOO, in every book about animal behavior etc. there are plenty of pictures of different faces animals make when expressing various emotions. These moviemakers apparently know nothing about animals.

[@easolinas1233]

If you look at the videos of lions rescued from circuses and whatnot, you can see the pain they have and the love they have for their mates. They can emote.

[@Chibi_Sashi]

What doesn't make sense to me is making the animals behave in a "realistic" manner yet they can speak and sing.... The hyper realism would have made a lot more sense if this was made as a documentary movie with narration over it or even if there were subtitles for the characters and the animals growled and grunted like they do in real life.

[@Klondike877]

I agree so much

[@YujiUedaFan]

Or even have some of the more expressive animals narrate it, like a retelling.

[@Mysikrysa]

But they still are not realistic because real lions are very expressive with their faces and body language. The fur looks real but they should have make them realisticaly emotional or maybe a little over-the-top emotional because many people have problem to read emotions in other people, not to mention animals.

[@YujiUedaFan]

@@Mysikrysa They're like the Disney costumes in the theme parks. True they look like the real thing, but they're not able to be as expressive due to the way they're built.

[@dx.feelgood5825]

*cough* Aslan *cough*

[@jones1618]

Perfect analysis. Right on. Besides giving the animals more human-readable expressions, it would have helped the movie if they had tossed in a couple of new story elements or narrative flourishes as well to justify the retelling. And, like you said, "What's up with the strict photorealism?" I think Hollywood keeps making the mistake that CGI can only be used for two things: "Realer than real" (or "photorealism" as you said) or "Wildly imaginative." Why can't they mix a little of both? For Lion King, they could've kept the realistic animal CGI while sprinkling a little bits of magic elsewhere to make it interesting. So, besides giving the animals more humanistic expressions, they could've allowed the environment to be a bit more surreal and colorful (more like the color palette of the Broadway version). Likewise, on stage each animal species was depicted as sort of a "tribe" with its own look. If the movie had "costumed" the animals a little bit with touches of color (think face and body paint) and hints of adornment: feathers here - beads there, etc, it would have elevated this story to a human allegory or myth instead of being a dry NatGeo documentary w/ a voice-over.

[@matthewbennett9928]

But by the giving them human emotions it be more unsettling because you really into the uncanny valley problem so while i get your point i must disagree.

[@jones1618]

@@matthewbennett9928 I wouldn't think the uncanny valley would apply to animal faces with a touch of human-like movement. On the other hand, some people (not me) seem totally creeped out by the Cats trailer. So, its possible you're right.

[@hexyko4850]

That's a great idea!

[@ruesingh8985]

live action Scar just seems like a bitter lion while animated Scar is a chilling character that’s actually interesting to watch

[@jcohasset23]

The animated Scar looks and acts intimidating and in part because of that he makes a great villain. Live action Scar looks somewhat pathetic as someone whom does a lot of fighting but usually loses.

[@FiveOClockTea]

I mean... both are animated, but... But imagine how awesome real lions would've been! 🤩

[@aqdrobert]

Original: Mufasa falls. New: Mufasa falls into the uncanny valley.

[@reneepeters5051]

💀 #underratedcomment

[@Xehanort10]

Animated Lion King: Mufasa falls screaming to his death. Live action Lion King. The audience screams because of how Mufasa looks.

[@emobirch4559]

you've convinced me to watch paddington, thanks

[@mysticpanckae8390]

It's a good movie

[@constanceharvey]

Rocket Raccoon is also a good animated animal that emotes.

[@kyberkrystalbong]

Imagine if they actually make the "I cant wait to be king" part all colorfull and crazy, it would look like an hallucinogenic trip, it would be soooooo cool

[@lauralbranch]

I agree with the emotion, but I feel they could have used body language a lot more. They could have used so many different movements to express how they were feeling. Here’s some simple fixes for mufasa’s death and simba’s reactions: Putting ears farther back, adding wider eyes, a slightly tucked tail, fur sticking up, jaw slightly slacked, pupils small to show that he’s afraid, butt down to show submissiveness and fear, and claws unsheathed to show strain of emotion and fear. Not to mention, animals can and will cry when upset or depressed. These are all things that lions can do when afraid, or even cats in general. However, I actually enjoy the scene with Scar slashing Mufasa’s eye. It shows he held a grudge, and he wanted to deliver the same mark his brother gave to him so long ago in a challenge (mentioned when Scar and Mufasa are talking to one another for the first time, Scar says, “I would never challenge you *again*”). However, it also wasn’t at all a smart mov. If Scar wanted to make it look like an accident for the rest of the pride, why do something so obviously deliberate?

[@anabelloc98]

I feel like the people who made this movie clearly didn’t have cats or references for the expressions and physical emotions house cats have. They are quite similar to lions in this aspect and I caught myself thinking and re imagining this movie when I watched it with my house cats body movements and reactions.

[@niamhhoran]

I went through the whole movie thinking the same thing - you'd think these people had never seen a cat in their lives.

[@user-ur9rn5kv9f]

True, at least the animators studied the behavior of real lions for the original film. From the new LK trailer the lions look realistic yet their movements are so 'off'. But guess I can't judge the remake until after I see it

[@jillustration]

Got a friend who worked on the movie. They had to have exact reference for everything and copy it exactly. That is actually the problem. As animators, we tend to naturally want to caricature and exaggerate - so anytime you see a CG movie with creatures who don’t emote a lot - that’s most likely the clients decision, not the artists.

[@Mysikrysa]

I love J. M. Masson´s quote: "Human is happy, dog is happiness." It totally perfectly describes how much more emotional animals are compared to humans because they are not overrational and don´t supress their emotions. They express their emotions with their eyes, face muscles and whole body position. Making CGI "realistic" animals who don´t express emotions is not realistic at all. The alien "dog" from Riddick movie is non-existing CGI animal and it is realistically expressive like real animal. Rocket Raccon looks realistic and is very expressive without looking fake.

[@AnnoyingAsianWitch]

How to Train a Dragon did a better job studying cat behaviour.

[@samm8736]

There's a reason why detective Pikachu have a very good ratings...the Pokemon were expressive even though it was fiction

[@CHINKICHOU]

Sam M unlike lion king, which is non-fiction

[@roomfullofpigeons]

@@CHINKICHOU I think OP means Pokkemon are fictional creatures, whereas lions are real. But The LIon King is fictional.

[@AnnoyingAsianWitch]

Imagine if they tried making Pikachu look like a real mouse *shudder*

[@guardian-X]

It was cartoony.

[@user-nf3hh8kn5r]

that Hakuna Matata clip from the live action gave me shivers... of fear. it looks so disgusting.

[@pyroshayniac1090]

Just cheap and trashy.

[@thebatman4279]

Looks very bland.

[@ah_here_we_go_again5310]

I was so disturbed.

[@Xehanort10]

"Hakuna Matata. "What an awful phrase. Hakuna Matata, these live action remakes are a passing phase.

[@Mewz123]

"Lions can't emote." UM. ASLAN????

[@arualblues_zero]

I have the feeling that the emotional points, the true story got lost between "hey look what my cool tech can do", getting an impressive buzz-worthy cast, and the pressure of living up to the remake's own hype. I haven't watched the original in ages, and just seeing the little snippets you added here brought back some goose bumps. Nostalgia perhaps, but I was no longer a kid back then...

[@tomboz777]

I've seen the scene on twitter and it was CRINGE. It's human equivalent of watching the most wooden actors lip syncing to a (far more) emotive voice over. Every time I see a clip of it I find my self narrowing my eyes looking for emotion in the faces and seeing if their mouths are actually moving? I think people owe Andy Serkis an apology for his decision to put human faces on his animals in his Jungle Book.

[@superkamiguru4615]

Noooooo the Netflix Mowgli movie animals were horrifying to look at. It constantly took me out of the movie having to look at these animal hybrid monstrosities. Perfectly cast and well acted, but the designs were still ugly and unsettling. It’s still a bad idea to mix human facial expressions/features with realistic animal heads. BUT the remake of Jungle Book and the first Narnia movie both managed to find a great balance. The animal characters both looked realistic enough with slightly more expression than naturally allowed and it really worked. The Lion King remake REALLY dropped the ball with this one and there was no excuse for it😑

[@RM-of2oz]

People have to realize that some things don’t always look right in CGI, it might work for some other movies that have different colors and backgrounds but still the visual effects and how they made this look so real was really cool, that shows how far technology has come

[@Tyler_W]

That's not quite the same thing. There's a difference between making otherwise realistic looking animals convey human emotion through their faces and actually goving animals human-like facial features akd facial structure.

[@SuperSwedishStar]

I still hate Disney for copying "Kimba the White Lion" and still insisting the Lion King is their original story!

[@hexyko4850]

Same!!

[@CatoftheStorm]

I now appreciate that Dreamworks did not have the horses speak in "Spirit". That would have been sooo strange (although animated would have made it work).

[@hexyko4850]

Wait... I remember the horses speaking for some reason. But then I only saw bits and pieces of the film. I preferred 3D DreamWorks.

[@CatoftheStorm]

It was a voice over narration. So we had Spirit's inner voice, but the horses never actually moved their lips. They were very expressive (more than an actual horse) but were still horses.

[@jcohasset23]

@@CatoftheStorm It's just a shame they didn't use actual horse sounds and instead had humans imitating them. Rain, in particular, didn't sound very horse-like. But I do agree that the stylized approach Dreamworks used does an excellent job of conveying emotion.

[@kaptenteo]

It's so weird how they think it would work to not have any emotions on display, and still hope to evoke an emotional response from the audience. It's... incomprehensible.

[@matthewbennett9928]

If they human emotions like in the cartoon it would be creepy and you would really have an uncanney valley. They emoted the way real animals do. I have a cat I know there emotions.

[@jessiamedeiros4294]

@@matthewbennett9928 My cat shows waaaaaaay more "emotions" than the ones showed in the movie.

[@RM-of2oz]

Jessia Medeiros he is cat it’s many differences between a cat and a lion. They belong to the same group but cats have been really tame and lions are not. Now cats may have a more of an expressive way and a lion can really only show emotion when doin certain things

[@stefannydvorak7919]

Kamiah Barcus But the answer in not to make a whole movie where your characters only facial expression is =_= That’s not how lions work either. They’re so bland and unemotional, while you can tell that the voice actors really gave a lot of energy into their roles. It’s such a weird experience to have lively voices and dead eyed characters. It makes the whole movie look like a bad lipsync job. The Hakuna Matata scene particularly gave me that weird feeling. The fresh, jazzy music paired with the lively singing just didn’t mesh well with the dull, monochrome background, the weirdly energetic bodies of the 3D models and their completely static faces.

[@RM-of2oz]

Stefanny Dvorak they actually did have facial expressions but U didn’t see it thru out the whole movie

[@ManubibiWalsh]

I absolutely agree with this. The other thing I absolutely HATE about how they went about it is... the complete lack of color. The original movie is colorful to a fault, every single color pops in every sequence (aside from those set in the Pride Lands after Scar takes over, obviously), everything is full of life and the attention is kept up also because of how colorful everything is. Really, even just from an aesthetic point of view, The Lion King is a delight partly because of how much color is in it. All renaissance Disney movies had very saturated, bright colors, but The Lion King to me pops in a special way, visually speaking. The colors all contrast and highlight each other, it's really noticeable and makes all the emotions also literally pop. The death sequence would not have been that impactful without black fading in around Mufasa's shocked eyes, and without losing its color right when it gets saddest. In this sense, that one scene in the movie (when Simba cries and Scar psychologically manipulates him) kind of resembles the remake's whole look. Every single scene looks lifeless, every color is de-saturated, which goes along with the lack of facial expressions and body language, and in general this movie seems to me like a weird technical flex on Disney's part. And here's why Detective Pikachu (or Paddington) are way superior to this movie. Not just because the CGI in them is completely on par, but because the CGI creatures all emote in a way that's not realistic... because we are not looking for realism. It's animation. Animation does not have to be realistic, because it's FUCKING ANIMATION. If they wanted to do a realistic portrayal of lions, they could've just filmed lions and done a documentary. Like... holy shit, how can Disney so fundamentally misunderstand what animation is supposed to do when they used to be the top dog in the industry and for a goddamn good reason? Now they're still top dog, but that's because of a brand based on past successes. And let me rant about another thing that really pisses me off about this approach: the fact that clearly Disney think photorealism is "more serious" and "more adult". Fuck that. Animation has always been a perfectly respectful technique for narrating stories, the fact that it's considered as "silly stories for kids" is just a result of ignorance, so if the animation industry really wanted to change things they should have kept animating the way they always did and *demand* respect from the rest of the industry. The problem here is not animation as a technique. It's the fact that old farts in the industry are unwilling to look past their boring, colorless perspective to discover something new. And that's not a fault of traditional animation, that's their fault and the Academy's problem to fix. Also, I'm a grown ass adult and I feel highly offended by how fucking patronizing that whole approach is. I'm not a fucking kid if I like Disney classics, or anime, or animation in general. Those products changed my life because they are genuine art coming through a technique that allows imaginative visuals to exist without any kind of technical limitation. And I'm not saying animation is better than live action, but I'm saying if a movie wants to look realistic then it should be live action. If it wants to look imaginative, beyond the strict boundaries of reality, then it should be animated. Detective Pikachu works perfectly in toeing the line because it's animated, the CGI creatures all emote believably and are somewhat cartoonish while still looking like they could almost exist in reality, and that movie immerses you in Ryme City in a way that does not break suspension of disbelief, and actually once the movie's over you'll find yourself wishing pokemon were real. Because it's magical, exactly the way animation always has been. This Lion King has no magic, nothing beyond its looks, and that's why I hate it. Because the original was so full of life and magic and wonder, and in the new one it's all gone. The whiplash is extremely disappointing and, in my case, rage-worthy. I don't fucking care for having Simba being realistic, I want to be able to empathize with him because his story is pretty much universal in a lot of ways and it's a story I love deeply, and this movie won't allow me to. If only they'd gone the Paddington/Detective Pikachu way, and kept the colors shining through I would have tolerated this movie's existence, but I can't. I can't accept it. To me this monstrosity does not exist, I reject it as a life-long Disney fan, and I hate that it's a thing at all. TL;DR: fuck photorealism in animation, it misses the point of what animation even is and it's downright insulting to all audience it's supposed to be meant to.

[@sedsa097]

I agree, the lighting was quite muted though. It was like the story was set in Europe instead of Africa. It's supposed to be brighter than that. If u compare African movies with European ones, u'll see what I mean.

[@marcohidalgo1101]

@@sedsa097 You know something's wrong when Midsommar, a horror movie for adults taking place in Sweden, has stronger and brighter colours than this Disney movie remake taking place in Africa.

[@marimbasolo8306]

Yeah they really needed more colour in the remake. 50 shades of beige much

[@Kasuyaki007]

yeah I think too that they focused too much on "having to be realistic".then it feels like it lacks the "imagination playground" mindset. It's like drawing a picture in a class and you have to follow every instruction exactly as the teacher say. Any improvisation or imagination makes you got punished.

[@mayaattwell6577]

If they really didn't want to do facial animations, I dunno, it feels like they could've done a lot with body language alone. Cats have so much personality that shows in how they behave even if their faces don't move much. ... really pretty film though. Simba as a cub gave me a lot of the intense "need to hug" feels I get with real life kittens as well.

[@squiggles7833]

Can you feel the love this afternoon, The sun is shing bright, Why are we singing about peace and harmony, When we cant do it right

[@oj321]

How would you say Jungle Book 2016 compares? Obviously they had an actual human in the starring role, but would you say the commitment to photorealism is on the same level, or some liberties are taken which ultimately assist the characters' emotions?

[@TropeAnatomy]

The Jungle Book did wayy better at showing character emotion. Definitely more liberties were taken especially with Baloo. And overrall I just think that one adds so much of value that we didn't get in the animation, it makes us love the story more. The Lion King doesn't - it just takes away from it.

[@Tyler_W]

The answer to that is in the words of the director himself who directed both films. He didn't like how they selectively used stylized realism to show human emotion in animals because he believed that greater commitment to photorealism would be better. Disney apparently agreed enough that they gave him The Lion King to essentially test that theory. What he clearly didn't realize was that even if you want realistic animals, there needs to some degree of stylized realism in the faces of talking animals because that is integral to how humans communicate and understand emotion, even thriugh fictional characters.

[@doubleasworkshop1692]

@@Tyler_W that is what happens when you give a live action director to direct an animated movie. Favreu is a fantastic director, but his thoughts show his clear lack of knowledge in the field of animation. Animations are by nature surrealistic. You can't just make it "realistic" and expect it to work

[@Mario87456]

To be honest it was uncanny to me how realistic they were and yet they talked like humans.

[@hydrashii]

Not only they can't emote, you can barely distinguish one lion from another with the lighting they use. It's a problem I recall seeing in the Netflix series of Watership down, not only they seem to know only one type of lion, making them so realistic makes them loose all physical characteristics that make the characters be recognizable. Scar wasn't just his expressions and flawless voice acting, it was how he was a lot thinner than Mufasa, how his face was long and his eyes were sharp, you can recognize all characters just by they sillhouettes, how is it in thi movie? he's smaller than Mufasa and has a slightly more scarce mane also the voice acting was CLEARLY toned down by request, because if they emoted too much they couldn't lipsync it or it would "look silly", it's obvious how many of the actors had to force themselves to deliver emotion but at the same time not too much of it or else this "super cool technology advance" wouldn't make it so it matched.

[@Butterism]

Honestly, Mufasa's death in the 2019 movie made me laugh. Simba's "nooooo" was so weak. I was like, really? That's the take you decided to go with?

[@Noxfaeles]

Realistic animals with human expressions can be done if done right. Just look at Guardians of Ga'hoole. The movie is nothing like the book, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. The animation is fantastic.

[@morningstar8187]

I refuse to watch this shameless cash grab, and if I happen to have kids some day, they’ll watch the original. Yuck, Disney. Yuck.

[@zycovleech6163]

But is it Disney's fault? They are a company, they have to make money, it's not Disney's fault they serve us shit and people loving to eat that shit over and over again

[@linasayshush]

@@zycovleech6163 it is Disney's fault. They're making the movies. They could just as well make good movies and people would watch them just the same - in fact, more people would watch them, because they'd be *good*. It's not like Disney is scurrying around trying to keep afloat, they own almost half (!!!) of the entertainment industry. They can do whatever the hell they want, they're a monopoly. They make bad movies because they choose to.

[@zycovleech6163]

@@linasayshush And they keep doing them because people consume them, they don't force anyone to see them (and a lot of people love them because this generation is very nostalgic). Cigarrets give you cancer, however people are stupid enough to buy them, we as consumers also have responsabilities, but we tend to forget that because it's easier to blame the capitalist mouse

[@MollyFC]

@@zycovleech6163 they've made billions since they've acquired Marvel and Star Wars. It's not like they're on the brink of bankruptcy

[@Alexis-wg5nx]

Morning Star by the time you have kids, the CGI will be so outdated and look awful compared to what your kids are watching at that point. They won’t want to watch the live action remakes and will likely prefer the original

[@quinnalex9596]

Thank you for creating some commentary around this film! I’ve been hungering for it all day.

[@layoverbear]

i never thought about that paddington comparison! it makes so much sense.

[@DoesntReadReplies]

Well done. Your video is the first I've come across that so succinctly and thoroughly explains the uncanny valley problem with photo-realistic animation. What made the original Lion King phenomenal was the animated human expressions on the animals - it's so sad to see that gem of an accomplishment abandoned in the new adaptation, instead of built upon.

[@NetAndyCz]

I think it is just stupid to try to strive for realism in Lion King (or Cats) which is fundamentally based on allegory and fables. You just cannot do a good job of animal anthropomorphism and staying realistic, animals do not speak as we do (with some exceptions for parrots), they do not have the same range of emotions and they tend to display them completely differently. It works well in animation, because the suspension of disbelief is easier to achieve with not realistic animals that just function differently in the animated world.

[@christinelindberg-gilhus1590]

I get Lion King because we're going from cartoon to real life animation. Of course it would be better if they did like with Aslan in Narnia. But as someone who saw the OG in the cinema as a kid, also seen the musical in London, I still enjoyed seeing yet another variation of it. Then again I was just expecting a more realistic frame by frame retelling. Cats on the other hand, I'm livid! There's literally no reason to make, especially not in the way they're doing! Should just have filmed the musical cast on a movie set. I'm definetly skipping that, will rather see the musical a second time.

[@matthewbennett9928]

@@christinelindberg-gilhus1590 I agree I enjoyed The Lion King and I understood what they were going for and enjoyed for it for it was offering.

[@itzelmontalvo6645]

My exact thoughts buddy,my exact thoughts

[@woolfmcwolf]

@@christinelindberg-gilhus1590 thank you, you're probably the only one who said this.

[@YujiUedaFan]

Most of the animals in this Movie remind me of how the "My God" Lion talks.

[@johnjoe672]

I don't understand why people can't understand that realistic =/= good.

[@KOTEBANAROT]

normies normally cant tell the difference between good art with simplistic rendering and bad art "WITH A LOT OF DETAILS OMG THAT SURE TOOK A LOT OF TIME". thats where "RENDER HARDER" meme comes from

[@Gumpa2]

I've come to learn the term "pixel-fucker" for those that wank over super-realistic cgi and like to do it.

[@louisp2360]

Actual "professionals" at Disney need to listen to this review and more like it, and not snub KZbin reviewers. Very informed and knowledgable, full of insight, and delivered with a touch of humor.

[@indayteray8647]

Dont forget the 2011 Tintin movie. It had photorealistic emotions on human characters unlike the horrible Lion King.

[@dinglemcspringlefairy9050]

The uncanny valley, what a horrible place The uncanny valley, what's wrong with your face(read in tune of hakuna matata)

[@thisaccountisembarrassingi4429]

It means "realism" for the rest of your days!

[@dinglemcspringlefairy9050]

It's our garenteed monstrosity, the uncanny valley

[@broseidon1658]

Black Rick The uncanny valley?

[@Alexis-wg5nx]

Death Omen Timon: when we used to be hand drawn Pumbaa: *when we used to be hand DRAWWNN* Timon: nice job, pumbaa Pumbaa: thank you

[@princessthyemis]

This is GOLD.

[@zubahmazood7951]

Same with Beauty and the Beast. The beast was so bland. Every character was so bland. They just made it boring by making it 'live action'.

[@zakiyabambozzle2933]

What about the French beauty and the beast, "La Belle et Bete "* ? The beast looks better in my opinion.

[@LadyAhro]

Zakiya Briggs Oh the French one, the 2015 film was weird but visually stunning. The original original French one is fascinating and I actually own it on DVD. Those hand candelabras and huge billowing curtains are cool.

[@PEEKabizzle]

Your videos are so great! Love the in depth opinions and analysis. Keep up the good work!

[@fyllingenoy131]

"Lions can't emote" is the reason why this never should've been made.

[@seopark7467]

also, Jon Favreau's done this before, with the Jungle Book. If I remember correctly, all the animals emoted to a point where I found the voice acting to be believable with the cgi. I just don't understand why they couldn't for this movie??

[@superkamiguru4615]

Amy Park exactly!! From what I could tell from interviews, Jon ended up not liking the look of the animals from the jungle book and wanted to make the animals in the LK much more realistic. A huge misstep in my opinion 🤷🏼‍♀️

[@npcimknot958]

Ya that’s just messed up.. don’t make a movie about talking singing animals, then! Jungle book was good because it was a mix of photo and cartoony

[@princessthyemis]

@@superkamiguru4615 COMPLETELY. what a terrible move.

[@michaeldavis1879]

You can still make photorealistic-looking animals emotive. Look at Rocket Raccoon or the apes from the "Planet of the Apes" reboot trilogy. Even Netflix did this well with Pogo the chimp on "The Umbrella Academy".

[@KookiesNolly]

i think it's because the examples you gave emote like humans, not like real animals. Racoons and chimps didn't evolve to communicate with us, they don't try to mimic our facial expressions, it's even more true for felines. Most animals don't express their emotions like us, so, if you make the animals too photorealistic in their emotional expressions, humans will have a hard time relating to them and feeling the intensity of their emotions. I think that's what is happening here. IMO, when you're making a movie like LK full of emotional moments for a human audience, it's better to anthropomorphize the animals, they'll be less realistic but it's good that way because real animals to act like us. That's what cartoons have always done.

[@Beefabee]

Simba had the same expression when he stood in front of his dead father and having fun with Nala

[@clownjunction]

this is a great video essay, i appreciate how well rounded your review was

[@noellechapman7667]

I was cringing so hard through the Hakuna mattata. Smh. More like Hakuna magarbage

[@mara4332]

Most of the lion king reviews are so full of hate that yours felt refreshing, being amazed by the technology used and the quality of the effects but still voicing your problems in a very respectful manner. Instead of only destroying a movie with wrath I hope to watch more videos like this.

[@fightingfaerie]

I liked the animation itself. And appreciated some of the story tweaks, "I wouldn't challenge you... again", Mufasa saying why exactly he let Scar stick around instead of exiling him, dropping a line about Sarabi leading the charge to drive the hyenas out, making Shenzi more of a leader in her own right, even the tuff of hair literally going through the Circle of Life until it got to Rafiki. But I agree the emotion just wasn't there, at least where it counted. And like most of the remakes, it felt like they were just hitting each plot point and moving on, some scenes just don't feel as impactful or feel like they moved past too quickly.

[@seunghojung7047]

You really summed it up perfectly, their dedication to photorealism really killed the original emotions from the movie (in my opinion too) thank you

[@HeloisGevit]

Completely agree, just watched it today and the photorealism made the film really rather boring and it fell flat. The boar and weasel were definitely the highlight as well.

[@mackorftw]

Hahah, weasel.

[@happychaosofthenorth]

One thing that didn't work was that they looked *almost* photorealistic, but there was still something off and they look real but don't behave like real animals would. It's more than just the emoting. And Timon is a meerkat and Pumbaa is a Warthog.

[@matthewbennett9928]

I really enjoyed and its because I have a cat and know how they emote and therefor I read simbas emotions made me connect with it.

[@tootbender6935]

*Meerkat.*

[@ryanammenheuser4788]

The vocal performances are good though? What I'm hearing is that when it drops on DVD, someone oughta rip the audio from the live action version and put it on the animated one. Except for maybe Jeremy Irons.

[@luisa146]

Why though? The voice actors are great in the original, and Jeremy Irons is brilliant. Also I'm sure they had to change some scenes, such as Timon's hula dance.

[@plastiqbeach7487]

I believe the voice acting was more convincing and ultimately would work better with the original than the og voice acting did. Also, as a black person it was really nice to see real black people acting in the movie, especially Donald Glover and Beyonce as they brought way more to the songs than the originals did.

[@Klondike877]

@@plastiqbeach7487 i dont see why it should be black persons honestly. An acting role under a character animated should never have a raciste preference, unless the character is supposed to have a voice tgat require that said accent. But as far as we know, lions does not belong to black people accent neither to white. Im fine with Donald glover, but i hate that Beyonce got Nala role. I love muffasa, as much as i loved scar original actor.

[@plastiqbeach7487]

@@Klondike877 I just think it was better for a movie centered around Africa and African culture to have a mostly black cast, just like it's good for frozen, a movie set in Scandinavia, to have a mostly white cast.

[@Klondike877]

@@plastiqbeach7487 I don't believe it is a good thing because it simply put out of cast better people sometimes, and it is againts right choice. Just take for exemple, Kratos in god of war, that's a greek scandinavian demi god, but his voice was portreyed by Christopher Judge, and thats perfect for the role. Why Zazou is still played by an english white man then?

[@lyonellaverde3135]

You're younger than 1994? Wow--you sound so mature.

[@atomicvinylreviews3420]

really? he sounds like someone in his late teens to me...

[@rozzaziobrown6515]

He sounds like he's in his early 20s to me.

[@eliza.the.earthling]

You caught onto something that I wondered (and worried) about when the trailers begun to be released: one aspect of what makes the original 2D animated Disney films amazing are the surreal colours and animation that accompany the music. When I saw the trailers, I thought the animation looked quite incredible but my second thought was would such a realistic type of animation allow for such surreal and contrasting animation during the songs? I'm sad but not surprised to hear your review. Thanks for another thoughtful and informative video.

[@f.miller801]

Digital fur technology is the future

[@alicedubois1348]

😂😂😂

[@theelectricant98]

;)

[@xv4689]

Excellent video as always; looking forward to your thoughts on Cats, because I've yet to form a single coherent thought myself.

[@MrStarfan100]

Kinav CATS looks like such a mess but i kinda love it? It‘s totally ridicolous („digital fur technology“) but IT KNOWS that.

[@dtomcheck]

I really hope that you revisit this topic with your review & analysis of ‘Cats’ now that it is in theaters...Great evaluation of the Lion King and the impact that the uncanny valley had on audiences and on the film’s ability to convey emotion in a powerful, meaningful, and real way... Just discovered the channel and I love it! Very Thoughtful and enjoyable! Keep up the good work!

[@AnotherJenn42]

Great video, as always. And it’s time for a part two featuring Cats.

[@mischr13]

Now I kinda wanna watch Planet Earth again. That series is gorgeous.

[@emexdizzy]

Actually, I complained when the trailer first came out. I complained about the movements of the herd animals, which still look oddly wrong in places. I've also watched a lot of footage of the actual animals, though, so it probably strikes me as off more than the usual person.

[@sailiealquadacil1284]

I couldn't pinpoint it like you, but I felt the same way. I'm hypersensitive.

[@CandyApples4ever]

Siara Hughes That was me. Instant I saw first trailer I was turned off. I love animals.

[@Buglin_Burger7878]

I didn't complain, but that was because I knew it suffered from a common issue plaguing 3D realism. Nothing could keep up with that was needed without feeling off. To have something inhuman behave as a human while being realistic does not work. When it is 3D or 2D and less realistic you can generate inhuman movements. If you watch many 3D realistic movies or experience time with non-human creatures irl it draws attention to the flaws of realism. ESPECIALLY with a quadruped build.

[@princessthyemis]

You NAILED IT!!! fantastic quote from that review, too.

[@marylandgirl9246]

Great video! You perfectly explained the main problem I had throughout the entire movie. (The miscast of some of the main actors being the second.)

[@bassplayertaylor6983]

Hell yeah we got some Ex Machina in here! I thought that movie was really good.

[@ImusakHctividar]

I can't help but wonder if this could have been made more interesting if the characters didn't speak. If they're so lifelike, let them be that way. It would be experimental and risky, but it would have been nice to see.

[@TheJuliana0901]

agreed

[@barbaramizioek4806]

Or they could just make the animals make their natural sounds (you know, roaring etc) and subtitle them :P That would be a fun film to watch

[@ImusakHctividar]

@@barbaramizioek4806 Yeah, that could be good too.

[@hexyko4850]

@@barbaramizioek4806 Sadly most of the mainstream audience does not like subtitles and here in my country a good part of the population is illiterate. I watched the movie with special needs people (I'm one too, but it's not as severe) and that demographic absolutely needs voice acting or narration so they understand what's going on.

[@daniel-ht4gu]

great video! i was glad to hear about the parts that DID work. i haven't seen it yet but it does disappoint me that they didn't let themselves go out of the box that they made for themselves

[@florenciapena233]

Your videos are great and so in-depth. Keep going!!

[@TropeAnatomy]

Thank you! 😊