There are CGI-heavy movies that have held up well—Toy Story, Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, The Matrix, etc.—but none of those movies got by on eye candy alone. Most of Disney’s recent live-action/CGI remakes are practically made to be forgotten.
2 Likes
But have they held up as well as 2001, Blade Runner, Roger Rabbit, The Road Warrior, etc.? It seems that CG has given us more special effects but not better ones. Sure, most practical effects were terrible but at their best they’re unsurpassed. Now, most CG is terrible but at its best it’s basically good enough.
It could be argued that the original Lion King did a grievous disservice to Hamlet, and that the 1967 Jungle Book was an utter disgrace to Kipling’s The Jungle Books stories (wrong-turn Shere Khan, Pooh-ass comic relief Kaa, and those fucking dreadful Beatles-analogue vultures, ugghhhh) when compared to the CG recent version (Wolf tribal political infighting and drastic political death of Akela, Kaa as a wizened respected storyteller, Shere Khan/Mowgli’s intertwined backstory, menacing Bandar-Log). Everything has to do with the timing of when you first experienced the story-- that’s your framework, for better or worse, and Disney knows that it’s been a generation since the Lion King. Stuff is Better When You Saw it First™
(Holy shit, Lena Headey was in the 1997 Disney half-ass live action Jungle Book?)
Again, disagree. I saw the 1976 remake of King Kong as a kid years before I saw the 1933 original, but I never had any illusions about which version was the genre-defining classic.
How did you know the original was the genre-defining classic, having never seen it until years after you saw its bullshit throwaway '70’s remake? Something can be genre-defining and still be quaint. Hell, Buddy Holly was wildly popular and his songs were 90% cutesy euphemisms for fucking in a car but I assume you’ve enjoyed thematically similar popular music* that’s been made since the '50’s.
Nobody is arguing that the original Lion King is worse than the remake, remember-- it’s just more dated. Like, fine, the original King Kong was genre-defining. It’s still more quaint and boring than every successive remake, which is why they remade it. Cinema is spectacle and there was nothing new and exciting about the original anymore. People thought they could add to it and make some money, which they absolutely did by tripling their budget in gross sales and winning the Oscar for visual effects in '76.
Newer versions of things are made because the old versions do not sell outside of nostalgia-centric adults (who probably own the original already anyway), which is less broad-spectrum than those same adults taking their kids to the remakes of movies that were enjoyed in their childhood, full stop. Movie studios are profit-seeking corporations. I don’t see how you’re arguing against the Lion King remake existing apart from ‘I wish the world stopped awhile ago.’
*which may or may not have been about fucking in a car
If the 1976 version or its sequel were more impressive or exciting than the 1933 version then they wouldn’t be all-but-forgotten today. As you say, it was a bullshit throwaway remake that had little to recommend it beyond “look, we have color film now!” Just like this remake of The Lion King has little new to offer beyond “this version is CG!”
Sometimes a remake DOES come along that is so impressive that it totally eclipses the original. The 1939 version of The Wizard of Oz wasn’t the first time that story was adapted for the screen, nor was Bela Lugosi’s iconic 1931 performance as Count Dracula. So it’s certainly possible to tell an old story in a new way that rises above and beyond the films that preceded it. I just don’t think any of the recent Disney live action/CGI films meet or even aspire to that level.
We’re not arguing if sometimes remakes eclipse originals; multinational corporations do not run on warm feelings. You wondered about why they don’t just reissue a classic instead of pushing out remakes/reworks/reimagings, which is naive. The Pixar acquisition fundamentally changed the Disney house and now Disney remakes classics to make money, which A)works and B)is entertaining (if only for novelty, granted), and C)makes strategic sense, such as the experimental Bollywood/Indochina penetration with Aladdin. Strategically well-timed, technically superior remakes make good, safe business sense and are the opposite of taking a risk on a plucky indie idea. You don’t have to like them but they make money and will keep coming. Feel free to step on down to the nickelodeon and recoil in horror for the umpteenth time because OMG THE TRAIN IS COMING RIGHT AT YOU but the other theaters will be showing remade Disney properties.
(For the record, I do not find this paradigm awesome. I think we’re arguing past each other a bit and I can see your heart is in the right place and mostly agree. Shake on it?)
Imagine if Disney put all that talent and resources toward making either A) An original story that could turn into a new profit engine for generations to come instead of cannibalizing past work or B) A remake that at least aspired to eclipse the original in some way, thus elevating past work instead of aping it.
Serving up the same movie but with CGI that’s going to look terribly dated in a few years seems short-sighted, business-wise.
But hey, to each their own.
Sure—it’s Disney I’m disappointed in, not you.
1 Like
The new movie is a worse version of the old one in basically every way, but I don’t feel it was uncanny valley unless you experience visual effects a lot. The big problem is that it’s a gritty reboot of the Lion King and everything looks identical to everything else, the voice acting as a whole is much worse, the musical production makes bizarre choices… but John Oliver as Zazu was charming.
1 Like
I get what you are saying, but then we got Star Wars episode 8.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
