Will The Lion King remake be better than the original?

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/11/26/will-the-lion-king-remake-be-b.html


Something a bit amiss here…

Editing issues aside, I too wonder about the point of these things.

I saw the ‘live-action’ version of Beauty and the Beast recently and it was a fabulous recreation of the animated version. Really very well done but what was the point?


Because one or two of them (Beauty & the Beast / Cinderella) have made more than enough money to justify the whole project, and the others have either covered themselves or can be used as an accounting black hole.

Remember how Disney thought it would be a good idea to turn their theme-park rides into movies? And what a failure that was. A bunch of entirely “meh” films and then Pirates of the Caribbean made enough money to, ahem, keep it all afloat.

But why they exist is another matter. I genuinely think that it’s simply that the risk is too great to try something wholly new, given the costs that are now involved (video game companies are in the same boat too.) The Slow AI has determined that this is the safest route to profit, and, to be honest, it’s been proved right.


Well, since it’s relying on third party vendors for the animation work (including my former employers who worked on Disney’s The Jungle Book remake) - Disney can claim a large chunk of taxpayer money from the countries in which they operate. So the UK gets some DIsney money through employment, but in exchange, the UK taxpayers give Disney a whole bunch of money in return.

Race to the bottom!

(To the tune of The Adventures of Robin Hood)

Hollywood, Hollywood, riding through the glen,
Hollywood, Hollywood, with its “diverse” almost entirely white men,
It takes from the poor, and gives to the rich,
Hollywood, Hollywood, Hollywood

Hollywood, Hollywood, tax credits are a sham,
Hollywood, Hollywood, rebooting everything seems so glam,
Feared by the good, loved by the bad,
Hollywood, Hollywood, Hollywood

Hollywood, Hollywood, Jurassic World was (censored),
Hollywood, Hollywood, a sequel? Forget about it,
New ideas are bad, bad ideas are good,
Hollywood, Hollywood, Hollywood

:musical_note:There’s no business like show business :musical_note:, because it’s now called show handouts.

But in all seriousness, we need to make investing in films and TV shows attractive, but I don’t think tax credits are the answer.


Capitalists will wring as much value out of a property as it will relinquish, kind of like a CapriSun packet.


The “original” Lion King was based on Shakespeare’s Hamlet (scheming uncle steals the throne, etc). I don’t remember anyone at the time wringing their hands over whether it would be better than the original. It is what it is; like or or don’t like it on it’s own merits. There are no original ideas, some people are just better at recycling then others.


As for the “Why?” it seems to follow the pattern of “because we can,” referring to the hyperreal CG that is now available to make every animated thing “real.” It certainly won’t be better, in a way it’s apples and oranges to compare this kind of CG to a cell-painted classic. It’s like comparing painting to a photograph. I do get a bit down imagining the original will be looked upon as the lowly watercolor study to a great oil painting…


They did…

Though “The Lion King” is being touted as the first of the Disney animations without a literary precursor, the themes and conflicts seem to come straight out of Shakespeare; you wonder why they didn’t just go ahead and make a cartoon version of “Hamlet.”


For example.


Went with friends to watch the original in the theater, and at the end when the cub is held up one of them said, “It’s a girl!”


Will the new version still have the ghoulish “I just can’t wait to be King!” song?


I thought it was a remake of Kimba the White Lion? :open_mouth:


Disney executive:

“I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never heard of this Kimba the White Lion you mention”.


Well I’m guessing the point is someone wanted to rework that magical film and make it look visually stunning, and Disney wanted to make another bucket of cash to throw into their ever expanding Scrooge McDuck pool… So pretty much the same reason any big budget film gets made.

But boy does it look spectacular!

I don’t mean it appears as if the film will be spectacular, I mean, it literally looks spectacular. Amazing CGI, beautiful animation work and despite the leap from the source material in technique and sheer detail, instantly recognisable.


I believe it was on Boing Boing some years ago that I first learned of the rule about headlines with question marks in them. What was it, ah yes, the answer is always “No.”


Because lion cubs are cuter than whiny emo teenagers?


I wasn’t wondering but that’s a perfectly good reason. :slight_smile:


But I’d love to understand the thinking behind how spending millions of dollars and years of time retreading something that so many people feel is wonderful could ever make more money–that’s the point of a re-make when it comes down to it–than the original that it’s based on.

The thinking is, what parent is not going to take their kids to it? The original was re-released in 3D in 2011 and made about $100 million; re-releasing the original again wouldn’t make that much; it’s readily available at home. The new release will probably easily top $500 million in domestic box office, & $1 billion world-wide. That’s the financial thinking. I doubt there’s any artistic impetus behind the project, though I’m sure those involved will put their hearts into it given that it’s become so iconic.


the thing is, it doesn’t need to be better – i just needs to be as good.


“Will it turn a profit?”, is all the thawed head of Walt will say. We’re not sure if he’s gotten more cynical or if it is neurological degeneration from the cryogenics.


Was the Lion King ripped off from Kimba the White Lion?