Lion King Remake

[WeirdRaptor]

CNN Money's report
CNN Money's report
       
  :huh:  :blink:        :angry:    
What.

Just what. That is not a question. That is a statement of my complete, utter disbelief. Never has there been a more superfluous action taken by Disney's recent desire to re-adapt old stories. I could live with the remakes/re-adaptations of Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, The Jungle Book, and so on, because those have been told and retold a million times throughout history, but this... WTF.

[Coyote_A]

Seen this on my news feed recently and it also made me raise an eyebrow. I wonder what they even mean by "live action Lion King" since there wasn't a single human character in the entire movie... Do CG animals qualify or perhaps Disney have something else in mind? Something like the TLK musical maybe?

[ADFan185]

So what if Disney is doing this. They're also making a live action beauty and the beast with Emma Wattson and it looks actually pretty decent. So I might give this a shot.

[DarkHououmon]

My initial reaction was "Oh no".

I am usually not bothered by live action remakes. However this does seem... rather odd. I mean, several live action remakes that I know of, there are still human characters. So the live action adaptation kinda fits to some extent there. But The Lion King is entirely animal, so... I'm not sure how they plan to make that work.

I may wait until the trailers come out and see what it's like, but I'm not sure if I'll see it. Perhaps with my sister if she wants to go see it.

[Nick22]

There are certain Disney films that do NOT need sequels or retelling, but stand well  enough on their own. I saw Beauty and the Beast at the theater where my brothers works  today and it has held up extremely well for a 25 year old film. It remains one of the best films Disney has ever created.  Like Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King is one of of the best films Disney has ever created, and stands up very well 20 years on.  There was no need for crappy third rate sequels or spinoffs to either film, but Disney went ahead and did them any way- Belles Magical World, Lion King II. it would be one thing to retell stories that were not as popular- Say Robin Hood, or Sword in the Stone, but theres no need to retell the  top-list stories as live action or CGI. Jungle Book worked, because its been some 50 years since the original, and the 1967  film wasnt all that great any way.

[ADFan185]

I liked The Lion King 2:Simba's Pride it made had a ton of plot holes but for what it was It wasn't that bad of a movie. Kovu was a good outcast character he made the movie for me. It held up not as well as the first but did alright in my book. So if this looks decent I may support it.

[WeirdRaptor]

So what if Disney is doing this. They're also making a live action beauty and the beast with Emma Wattson and it looks actually pretty decent. So I might give this a shot.

The Lion King is fine as is, and it's not based on a fairy tale. That's the difference.

It's also not old enough to be remade yet.

[Ducky123]

Well, I've already seen the outrage on DA yesterday. Literally, every second status post/journal I received from people I watch went like "Lion King remake? No... just no..."

Well, I'm actually not too familiar with the original, only ever seen it in my very early childhood and not remembering much of that so I'll be open-minded and see if Disney does it like Jungle Book (which would be okay for me since it'd have awesome animation and backgrounds etc.) or not.

[WeirdRaptor]

Except there are no human characters, so there's no point to a "live action" remake, since none of the animals would be live-action. They would all be CGI creations.

[Coyote_A]

Yeah, I fail to see the point behind this particular remake too... It just looks like a cashgrab by Disney. <_<

[WeirdRaptor]

Thank you! 9 replies before someone other than Nick and myself came out and said it!