Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/08/09/a-fans-fantastic-deepfake-im.html
…
4 Likes
One argument against doing the designs that more closely mimic the cartoon version is that at that point would the movie be adding anything new? I somewhat agree with that sentiment but if the characters look exactly the same as in the cartoon but in 3D then why not just watch the cartoon?
I haven’t seen the new movie so i can’t really comment on the quality of it directly but i would be curious to see what others think that have seen it.
4 Likes
I always find the culture of fixing movies really interesting.
Fan cuts, scene remakes and the like are interesting exercises and yield some fun results (#SC38Reimagined) but don’t really change the original release or how it came out.
Have fun with it. Anyone should be able to. Just don’t lose sight of the effort or intent behind the originals as well. And especially don’t treat the original creators like garbage.
2 Likes
Impressive. Especially the ear twitch in the next to last frame. I guess i you are going to go “live action”, go all the way! The movie didn’t need to be remade, but I do prefer the deep faked version based on the 20 seconds of action provided…
4 Likes
Next deepfake the Toy Story 3 models onto the Toy Story 1 models.
5 Likes
The left side does look better… the right half is just… so many things wrong.
3 Likes
I just can’t understand how it was able to collect so many money. But I guess this is the power of marketing.
“Why not just watch the original cartoon?” basically sums up my thoughts on the whole remake. By most accounts the new version adds nothing to the original unless you’re just predisposed to hate cartoons. At least the Broadway stage version had original musical numbers and impressive costume design.
This deepfake doesn’t look like a serious suggestion for “improving” the movie so much as a personal technical exercise.
7 Likes
Now I’m wondering what kind of deepfakery could applied to Mickey Mouse. Hmmmm.
1 Like
Agreed! But I have not seen the movie, which side is the deepfake? 
1 Like
It would be adding Beyoncé
I don’t understand how photorealistic animals are in the Uncanny Valley. Unless, you know, you’re using the Uncanny Valley to drive clicks. But who would do that?
This is not an improvement, but then again, neither is the “live-action” version an improvement over the animated.
1 Like
That fan version looks awful and I don’t understand all the hate for the look of the new one. It’s technically magnificent due to being realistic and the original version was masterful with the tech they were working with back then. Both versions have overlapping strengths and weaknesses inherent to the technology used to make them. Other than that (and a stronger voice cast in the original) they’re almost shot-for-shot the same movie with the same lines and same jokes that hit on the exact same beats. They even make a joke about that exact issue in one of the songs. In Puumba’s part in Hakuna Matata, he sings ALL the words and is angry at Timon for not stopping him from saying ‘farted’.
The new one isn’t a storytelling masterpiece, but it’s… fine. It’s a perfectly enjoyable movie even if just for the spectacle of it.
4 Likes
Well there you go. If you’re not going to add something then why bother doing a remake in the first place? They could have simply re-released the original.
1 Like
If i wanted to be a cynic i would say that these remakes have less to do with trying to re-imagine a property and more to do with refreshing their copyright. Sure they do want the movies to be a success and they’ve attached people that genuinely want to make something they believe in but it is Disney and they have employed every tactic to avoid their IPs into going to the public domain. Part of that is updating their characters/properties every so often with a newer version.
6 Likes
Because it looks neat, makes oodles of money, and introduces a property to the current generation of kids in a relevant way. The original would be comparatively quaint to a first-time viewer. Redoing it like this is an obvious, profitable choice that grows shareholder value.
Hard disagree. The classic films have way more visual appeal and staying power than the recent batch of live action/CGI remakes.
Ask almost any Disney fan—old or young—to picture Baloo or Snow White or Lumiere or Dumbo and the image that comes to mind will be the 2D cartoon versions, not the recent remakes.
3 Likes
Correct, the characters that have been around for decades and everyone grew up with are very recognizable to Disney fans young and old. Nobody is saying the old films aren’t enjoyable. You asked why they would possibly do digital remakes instead of reissuing the originals, to which my answer was ‘billions of dollars and modernizing properties for a new generation’. Yes, The Aristocats or whatever is cute and handmade and taps on the ol’ nostalgia bone, but put it on for a kid who just saw an Avengers movie and it’s just not going to pack much punch.
1 Like
I dunno, it just seems like CGI doesn’t age as well as animatronics/SFX/puppets or hand drawn illustration.
It’s like video games. What feels cutting edge today will seem dated in just a few years. Seems like going for the stylized approach is always better for this kind of thing.
But in the end, it’s all about the dollars. Millions of them.
2 Likes
Well yes, I take it as a given that Disney is doing this because they believe there is profit to be had. I guess what I mean is I don’t believe these live-action remakes have anything to contribute from an artistic or storytelling perspective. Even as pure spectacle they don’t age nearly as well as the original films. Most people don’t even remember that Disney already did a live-action remake of The Jungle Book back in the 1990s.
1 Like
