Disney and Jon Favreau Joining Forces on “The Lion King”

MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Jedijax719 said:
$1 billion would be disappointing. This was poised to get close to $2 billion. $700 million domestic was all but certain while $650 million was absolutely certain. The reviews are devastating. I would have thought that 70's or 80's on RT would be expected if the movie didn't hit all cylinders. But 57%? With 8 days still to go? Even Aladdin was hovering around 60% for a few days.

Strong messages have been sent by critics about the live-action remakes.
Click to expand...

The Jungle Book got excellent reviews.

Pete's Dragon and Cinderella got good reviews.

BatB got OK reviews.

Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent weren't really remakes as they were reimaginings. They got poor to middling critical reviews.

Dumbo and Aladdin got bad reviews.

However, among audiences, the lowest review was for Dumbo with fair scores, and the rest only go up from there, with Aladdin, BatB, and Jungle Book getting excellent reviews.

Pete's Dragon and Dumbo were the only ones that didn't turn a profit in the theatrical window.

So, we've seen poor reviews from critics with the movie still getting high marks from audiences and making a big profit (and solidifying the brand). [BTW, Venom and Aquaman are in this same boat.] We'll see if TLK is also in this category or not.

But, this is not a message to Disney if the critical reviews for remakes wind up to be both positive and negative at times. And it is not a message Disney will take to heart if audiences keep making them profitable.

IOW, the live remake train is absolutely in no danger of derailment.
 
Jedijax719

Jedijax719

Well-Known Member
The question is whether this film is critic-proof like Aladdin was. But Aladdin had charm and spunk.

Not sure why Favreau couldn't get the same emotion for TLK that he had in TLB in characters like Shere-Kahn, Louie, and Baloo. Heck, for that matter, Aslan had more emotion in 2005 than I have seen in the TLK promos. Please tell me it's at LEAST better than that!
 
Jedijax719

Jedijax719

Well-Known Member
I can only hope TLK is better than this (which is actually pretty good in a "real lion" kind of way).

@Tony Perkis there's a Catch-22. I really want the next Star Wars, Matrix, Indy Jones, POTC, etc which are original. Some of the best original movies in the past several years have all been either Pixar or Disney animated. It's clearly what they do the best. But the sequels, prequels, remakes, and reboots keep paying the bills. Meanwhile, anything new is panned by both critics and audiences in the past several years (at least live action new material). So if they stop making the remakes, sequels, etc., then movie theaters will either crash or studios will HAVE to greenlight new material and critics may have to back off and give them a chance to save theaters and thus save their own jobs.
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Tony Perkis said:
Gotta be honest: I’m rooting hard for this film for bomb, both critically and commercially (as unlikely as that seems).

This has nothing to do with with whether I want the actual film to be good. Of course I do. I like the talent involved a lot.

I just want a message sent about Disney’s theatrical release strategy and the lack of originality.
Click to expand...

Problem is that outside the remake/franchise movies, Disney Studio 'original' movies usually bomb. You want more Nutcrakers&t4R, A Wrinkle in Time, Tomorrowland, and John Carters? Even the ones liked by critics and/or audience usually loose money in the theatrical window: Muppets Most Wanted, McFarland USA, The BFG, Queen of Katwe.
 
Brer Panther

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
I'm honestly surprised by the negative reviews so far. Not because I thought the movie would be good, I just expected it to get a lot of praise.

Tony Perkis said:
Gotta be honest: I’m rooting hard for this film for bomb, both critically and commercially (as unlikely as that seems).

This has nothing to do with with whether I want the actual film to be good. Of course I do. I like the talent involved a lot.

I just want a message sent about Disney’s theatrical release strategy and the lack of originality.
Click to expand...
Well, Dumbo was a flop, but that didn't send a message to Disney... maybe if ALL live-action remakes after this flop, they'll come to their senses, but I'm guessing the odds of that are pretty slim.
 
Jedijax719

Jedijax719

Well-Known Member
Before Disney bought Marvel and SW the only films that were hits were animated films
And Disney put ot 1 or 2 of those a year. They were FAR behind all other mainstream studios. POTC was a breakaway hit but all other live actions bombed hard. Disney wanted to not only make bigger films but also connect them to their parks to become more imersive. Their success with other live action stuff has beeb abyssmal. Can't blame them. Without these remakes, they'd whither again.
 
ᗩLᘿᑕ ✨ ᗩζᗩᗰ

ᗩLᘿᑕ ✨ ᗩζᗩᗰ

HOUSE OF MAGIC
Premium Member
Jedijax719 said:
Before Disney bought Marvel and SW the only films that were hits were animated films
And Disney put ot 1 or 2 of those a year. They were FAR behind all other mainstream studios. POTC was a breakaway hit but all other live actions bombed hard. Disney wanted to not only make bigger films but also connect them to their parks to become more imersive. Their success with other live action stuff has beeb abyssmal. Can't blame them. Without these remakes, they'd whither again.
Click to expand...

This needed repeating!
 
Animaniac93-98

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
Jedijax719 said:
Without these remakes, they'd whither again.
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't.

This isn't the 70s where the company's bread and butter business was live-action movies. The company has a much broader portfolio to draw revenue from, including Marvel, Star Wars and Pixar. (They also used to have Touchstone, Miramax and Hollywood Pictures releases, but Iger's brilliant strategy was to drop all of that in favor of big budget flops)

There's no reason to defend these mediocre remakes.
 
Jedijax719

Jedijax719

Well-Known Member
Without remakes, Disney will have Marvel, SW (will wane after TROS), and its animated films. Unless Disney can come up with SUCCESSFUL new live action materials, that's all they have.

As far as John Favreau's choices in giving the animals less emotion, I've read and researched the "uncanny valley". Not a hard concept to understand, but miscalculated. Basically, for those who don't know about it, it says that the closer something is to being human-like, the more it creeps people out. It's as if when you make something more and more realistic looking, people think it's cooler and cooler until you hit a point where they are repulsed and scared of it. That point is known as the "uncanny valley".

Narnia '05 didn't hit it but the animals showed great emotion. TJB was very realistic and had decent emotion. Netflix's "Mowgli" had poor digital work by today's standards but WAY too much emotion. People were repulsed by it. With TLK, Favreau went further with the realism but was afraid of showing too much emotion for the fear of scarring kids (and adults) for making the animals too realistic. Problem is, TJB was just fine and people actually WANT emotion for TLK because the animated was so expressive. Thus, I think it backfired on Favreau for not pushing it in TLK. At least as far as critics have gone it backfired. We'll see what audiences think. I'm a little worried because I think people are much more attached to TLK than Aladdin.
 
ᗩLᘿᑕ ✨ ᗩζᗩᗰ

ᗩLᘿᑕ ✨ ᗩζᗩᗰ

HOUSE OF MAGIC
Premium Member
There is enough attractions in WDW (and other Disney parks) to base a movie off of for a solid decade or two. They just have to weave a decent story together. Worked for Pirates, didn't for Country Bears or Haunted Mansion. The later being movies that could have worked had the script been worth a flip. I guess Jungle Cruise is up next. Let's see how it does! If successful, I assume they'll be more attraction-based movies to come. It's not "original" but it still better than a remake.

FWIW, I will not be seeing The Lion King. I've already seen it (and enjoyed it) 25 years ago!
 
Animaniac93-98

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
Jedijax719 said:
Without remakes, Disney will have Marvel, SW (will wane after TROS), and its animated films. Unless Disney can come up with SUCCESSFUL new live action materials, that's all they have.
Click to expand...

The idea that Disney can't is bogus and ignores a good chunk of their history.

Disney hit a wall in the early 80s after a series of unsuccessful live-action pictures. The solution? Come up with another brand to distribute movies of any kind (including R-rated films) and reap the benefits while keeping the core Disney family friendly brand intact.

It was Iger, who threw this whole concept under the bus because he was obsessed with making EVERY Disney movie a franchise that could drive consumer product sales, instead of sticking to lower budget and/or adult fare that could more easily turn a profit.

Your trying to get a mid-to-late 2000s strategy to work, instead of realizing what WAS successful for decades.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom