Disney Developing 'The Lion King' Remake

[neverendingmidi]

People calling bullshit on not giving "live action" cats expressions.

 

[friedshrimp]

Man, I just checked the DVDizzy Disney forum talking about this movie thread...Easily the biggest reunion of speds I've seen. From discussing that this Scar is already better than the original one because the original is racist and homophobic, to saying Beauty and the Beast needed sexual scenes...

It's the audience Disney deserves

https://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewt...id=5720d6e2723a961b3e02f5f3983a0387&start=340

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Man, I just checked the DVDizzy Disney forum talking about this movie thread...Easily the biggest reunion of speds I've seen. From discussing that this Scar is already better than the original one because the original is racist and homophobic, to saying Beauty and the Beast needed sexual scenes...

It's the audience Disney deserves

https://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewt...id=5720d6e2723a961b3e02f5f3983a0387&start=340

Yep, wht's with this generation of Disney fans? I was quite a fan of Disney in my childhood (I was born in the 80s) and we weren't like this. Say, we didn't try to insert our ideology into things, we allowed things to add something to our beliefs.

RE: Beauty and the Beast sex.

I can't even. I honestly can't tell what's in this people's minds because, they're often so sexually underdeveloped and insecure, but at the same time, sex is in their minds all the time. "Hey, I want that movie to have all the sex we all know I'm never going to have!" or something.

Even the Cocteau version of BatB, the one that is considered the most erotic, doesn't have sex scenes, fgs.

 

[Bread Fetishist]

Man, I just checked the DVDizzy Disney forum talking about this movie thread...Easily the biggest reunion of speds I've seen. From discussing that this Scar is already better than the original one because the original is racist and homophobic, to saying Beauty and the Beast needed sexual scenes...

It's the audience Disney deserves

https://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewt...id=5720d6e2723a961b3e02f5f3983a0387&start=340

In what way was Scar racist and homophobic?

 

[Xerxes IX]

So I may have been ninja'd with this, but ... Is anyone going to put money on Disney changing the ending to be woke as shit?

The original movie was all about borders and not letting certain animals into the Pridelands. Who's going to bet that the movie will end with Simba uniting the lionesses and the hyenas? HA, can you imagine? Take that, Drumpf!

I mean, I wouldn't put it past them at all. I'm flat-out expecting it, even. After all, they did change the ending to The Jungle Book in the 2016 remake, because why let Mowgli GROW UP? Let him be a mancub and party in the jungle forever with no responsibilities! #moviesformillennials

I mean, they also changed the ending of Dumbo to be a feel-good pro animal rights activists one where they were taken back to Africa and presumably lived happily ever after, when in reality releasing animals that have been in captivity and dependent on humans for so long is a horrible idea because they don't know how to survive on their own.

 

[Kari Kamiya]

People calling bullshit on not giving "live action" cats expressions.
Ver archivo adjunto 725536
Ver archivo adjunto 725537

To ruin the moment, the first row looks more like the cat's in the middle of a yawn, but lol looks like my kitty.

See, look at the eyes. The eyes are the most important because the irises change shape even in the middle of the day. It depends on the cat's emotions. Without looking it up, I'm just going to make an educated guess and say even the lion's irises change shape based on emotion. Feline's share similar traits no matter their wilderness or domesticated status.

 

[Trilby]

I mean, they also changed the ending of Dumbo to be a feel-good pro animal rights activists one where they were taken back to Africa and presumably lived happily ever after, when in reality releasing animals that have been in captivity and dependent on humans for so long is a horrible idea because they don't know how to survive on their own.

That alone gave me a headache. Never let PETA in on your scripts.

To ruin the moment, the first row looks more like the cat's in the middle of a yawn, but lol looks like my kitty.

See, look at the eyes. The eyes are the most important because the irises change shape even in the middle of the day. It depends on the cat's emotions. Without looking it up, I'm just going to make an educated guess and say even the lion's irises change shape based on emotion. Feline's share similar traits no matter their wilderness or domesticated status.

I'm sure none of this registers with any of 'em simply for not knowing that!

 

[Kari Kamiya]

I'm sure none of this registers with any of 'em simply for not knowing that!

Which confuses the hell out of me because animators have to do research on anything they're animating so they can get the most accurate depiction of the subject; I keep going back to Toothless because the team did absolutely everything they could to make sure this dragon acted like a real animal (he was a mixture of several different animals in looks, mainly panthers and bats, but he acts like your typical cat and dog) that you could ride on while still giving him emotions. There is no way no one on the team wasn't researching at least the movements of lions so they could make it "realistic", and they need to pay especially close attention to the eyes. Because it doesn't matter how realistic your CGI animal looks, if the eyes are fucking terrible, the audience is going to notice. Thus far, the eyes look better than Dumbo's anime eyes, but do they operate like a real lion's eyes?

I agree with @purpleboy that the 2016 Jungle Book movie portrayed animals better while still making them emote, and I thought that film was boring.

 

[UE 558]

I agree with @purpleboy that the 2016 Jungle Book movie portrayed animals better while still making them emote, and I thought that film was boring.

I think the issue is that JB was much more comedic, so they were allowed to be more expressive, while Lion King’s being poised as more of a drama, so everyone has look and act like they’re made of fucking stone

 

[Kari Kamiya]

I think the issue is that JB was much more comedic, so they were allowed to be more expressive, while Lion King’s being poised as more of a drama, so everyone has look and act like they’re made of fucking stone

That's not getting into the bastardization of Timon and Pumbaa, especially Pumbaa. No kid wants to see a realistic warthog front-and-center, and what they did to him is just insulting to the sensitive soul.

 

[Muttnik]

Someone re-edited the trailer with Jeremy Irons' voice and needless to say, it conveys so much more menace than the guy they got. Irons proved that there's only one Scar and anyone else will always be a boring imitation.

 

[RumblyTumbly]

Some people are saying that Irons should have voiced Scar again like JEJ is voicing Mufasa.

My comment on that is while I LOVE both of them as actors and in their roles from the original, doesn't act of reusing voice actors from the original make this remake even more pointless?

Granted, its pointless either way, but reusing voice actors would just cement it even further for me.

 

[cactus]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_DeniPu8dPI
Someone re-edited the trailer with Jeremy Irons' voice and needless to say, it conveys so much more menace than the guy they got. Irons proved that there's only one Scar and anyone else will always be a boring imitation.

That recut trailer is nice and all, but can they edit in James Earl Jones from the original? He clearly doesn't give a shit in the remake, he's just there for a paycheck.

Some people are saying that Irons should have voiced Scar again like JEJ is voicing Mufasa.

My comment on that is while I LOVE both of them as actors and in their roles from the original, doesn't act of reusing voice actors from the original make this remake even more pointless?

Granted, its pointless either way, but reusing voice actors would just cement it even further for me.

You do have a point, especially considering JEJ is just phoning it in, but then Scar's new VA sounds pretty bad too, so maybe the director just didn't care this time?

 

[friedshrimp]

so far the only people I've seen who seem to approve for this remake is only for "woke" reasons, anyone notice that?

EDIT: You know what? Fuck it. I'm bored and I wanna make fun of the autists from DVDizzy:

nomad2010 wrote: I think people aren’t realizing that there was backlash about Scar being dark colored and more feminine in his characteristics in the first place. This move makes sense to me from a “Disney trying to be PC” standpoint. They’re gonna get backlash if the only dark colored, non-straight acting character is the villain, and they’re gonna get backlash for changing him to be light colored and masculine. There’s no winning in Twitter culture..

Kyle: So...why are they trying again then? The trope has existed since the beginning of story telling probably, because it works.

Cinderello: If you mean making a character have a darker presence in hair and clothes, you would be right and it would be fine. But it doesn"t sound like you are. What you are saying sounds racist and homophobic.

Kyle: Racist and homophobic? I'm talking about a lion here, so yeah, the darker appearance. I happen to not agree with the whole gay coding thing as a concept. As in I don't think it happens, or if it does, not that much. I certainly never saw scar as gay (or taking on their traits), he's just...british or something. I'm just saying use what works from a story telling perspective, not try to win a twitter war that cannot be won.

Disney Shill: I don't think gay coding is intentional in Disney's case. Animated villains due to their very nature and function in the story are simply allowed to be more theatrical, campy, and over-the-top. The fact they usually have more caricatured or exaggerated design as opposed to the leads also facilitates and encourages broader performances. Ursula was based on Divine so that's possibly where those perceived gay traits came from and Jafar and Scar were designed and animated by Andreas Deja who may unconsciously inserted certain mannerisms that could be considered feminine. Voice actors and reference models also influence the look and performance of the characters. While I don't want to invalidate people's beliefs in regards to gay coding and Disney, it's something that's subjective and ambiguous. It shouldn't be treated as an indisputable fact.

Shill fangirl:
Andreas Deja himself is gay so I really doubt he would portray Jafar and Scar in a homophobic manner. Anyway, most of Disney's male villains are queer-coded. Besides the aforementioned two, Ratigan, Gaston, Ratcliffe, and Hades come to mind.

Disney Shill:

-JeanGreyForever wrote:
Andreas Deja himself is gay so I really doubt he would portray Jafar and Scar in a homophobic manner.

Andreas has gone on record saying he doesn't consider Scar or Jafar to be gay and never planned or intended to portray them as such. I feel a lot of accusations about gay-coded Disney villains are more indicative of the audience's stereotypical beliefs and perceptions about gay people than any nefarious intend by Disney. Claiming a character is gay solely because they're even a tiny bit theatrical or fun seems homophobic to me.

-JeanGreyForever wrote:
-Anyway, most of Disney's male villains are queer-coded.

You should avoid using that term since it's still considered a slur by people in the gay community.

Shill fangirl:
What term is considered a slur?

Disney Shill:

I was referring to the term "queer". I know a lot of people, including academic and journalistic publications have adopted the term but there's a fast-increasing movement claiming that any slur can only be re-appropriated and reclaimed on a personal, individual level and using a slur as a blanket term to refer to the entire LGBT community is not OK.

Cinderello: I am sorry to say Kyle is racist or homophobic, but I am not clear on what he is saying. Villains should not have darker skin or male villains have feminine features just to make them more villainous. That is wrong. I'm not saying more dramatic or theatrical features is wrong, but purposely putting more feminine or gay features in to make a male villainous is wrong. I guess darker fur is arguable...

Wall-E Sperg:
Gaston deasn't want Belle because he's attracted to her. He's not sexually interested in her or any other woman.
I don't care about the Broadway show.
Gaston wants the normative life according to his society, meanig having a little wife and kids and dogs. That doesn't explain why he hasn't shown any sexual attraction to her or any other women, and please don't tell me it's because he respects women and saves himself for his one true love, a guy like Gaston would take sexual advantage of any woman who'd show slight interest in him. I mean compare him to Frollo - Frollo is insane with sexual attraction towards Esmeralda, Gaston is not. Kiiling the beast has to do more with pride. It is also rumored that Ashman got HIV from someone like Gaston and projected that guy into the character.

And please don't tell me stuff like "did you watch the movie?". It's rude, Beauty and the Beast is my favorite film and Gaston being gay is a valid interpretation.

Cinderello: Yes, some dark physical traits is ok to show inner darkness and evil. Darker skin to show evil, NO, that is not ok. Darker fur? Sure, fine, whatever.

 

[Lucille Bluth]

So I may have been ninja'd with this, but ... Is anyone going to put money on Disney changing the ending to be woke as shit?

The original movie was all about borders and not letting certain animals into the Pridelands. Who's going to bet that the movie will end with Simba uniting the lionesses and the hyenas? HA, can you imagine? Take that, Drumpf!

I mean, I wouldn't put it past them at all. I'm flat-out expecting it, even. After all, they did change the ending to The Jungle Book in the 2016 remake, because why let Mowgli GROW UP? Let him be a mancub and party in the jungle forever with no responsibilities! #moviesformillennials

Probably. They "changed" many of the "problematic" bits in Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast and Sleeping Beauty basically gave us a "woke" rape allegory with the wings so I fully expect them to pull something like that.

 

[Zaryiu]

I mean, they also changed the ending of Dumbo to be a feel-good pro animal rights activists one where they were taken back to Africa and presumably lived happily ever after, when in reality releasing animals that have been in captivity and dependent on humans for so long is a horrible idea because they don't know how to survive on their own.

Any bets on what the ending to Aladdin will now be?

 

[friedshrimp]

^Aladdin and Jasmine won't get married in the end, since marriage is patriarchal and sexist in current year. Jasmine will already be crowned Queen instead.

 

[Xerxes IX]

^Aladdin and Jasmine won't get married in the end, since marriage is patriarchal and sexist in current year. Jasmine will already be crowned Queen instead.

Don't forget clumsy attempts to prove how absolutely not Islamophobic they are—Disney trying its best to imply any sexism towards Jasmine absolutely is not because of their traditional Islamic society, and pushing an "Islam is a feminist religion" angle.

 

[Kari Kamiya]

^Aladdin and Jasmine won't get married in the end, since marriage is patriarchal and sexist in current year. Jasmine will already be crowned Queen instead.

In all fairness, they didn't marry at the end of the film, and I think they were officially betrothed in Return of Jafar. They married in a direct-to-video sequel which was like the epilogue to the TV series if I remember right.

My prediction is Aladdin freeing the Genie won't be as heartwarming and meaningful like in the original and you're going to instead see more articles talking about how slavery is bad and that it may actually be racist because of who's playing the Genie. (Honestly surprised that hasn't happened yet, but then again, these are the same people who don't do their bloody research let alone have even watched the original.)

 

[Steamboat_Bill]

In all fairness, they didn't marry at the end of the film, and I think they were officially betrothed in Return of Jafar. They married in a direct-to-video sequel which was like the epilogue to the TV series if I remember right.

My prediction is Aladdin freeing the Genie won't be as heartwarming and meaningful like in the original and you're going to instead see more articles talking about how slavery is bad and that it may actually be racist because of who's playing the Genie. (Honestly surprised that hasn't happened yet, but then again, these are the same people who don't do their bloody research let alone have even watched the original.)

That was in King of Thieves, I believe.