[ SECRET POST #4346 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4346 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 22 secrets from Secret Submission Post #622.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

05. https://i.imgur.com/tmGCUkh.png

[(Anonymous)]

Lol.

For me, I hate to say it, but since the original was animation and this one is animation, I kind of don't see the point, since I assume it'll be similar scene-by-scene. It'll just feel weird seeing the characters talk with the "wrong" voices, especially Young Simba and Adult Simba.

I guess Mufasa is still the same voice though :D

[philstar22]

It's Lion King. Honestly, I don't even care, I just would love to watch more Lion King. The original movie is amazing. The Broadway adaption is amazing. Even the first sequel was decent. They managed to adapt it fine for Broadway, so we know the story is adaptable. So maybe they can make a good live action movie.

[(Anonymous)]

I definitely don't think it isn't adaptable and I have no reason to believe the remake will be poor. It's more of a matter of, just because you can do it, should you? Plus Disney's weird and unfortunate retirement of 2D, leading to these "remakes" which seems to imply that they are better as CGI/live action. idk. I'll go see it and I'll expect it to be great. But if it's just scene-by-scene the same, what's the point.

[(Anonymous)]

because people like philstar are going to pay them money for it, of course. What other point does Disney have? They'll retool their exact same stories over and over again as many times as people will pay them for it. Between owning Mavel and Star Wars you'd think they'd have enough money grabbing on their hands already but not when their 'classic' animation movies are fair game as well. They'll be retooling the Lion King yet again in another ten years to resell it yet again. I'd call it desperate and pathetic but people actually give them enough money when they do it to make it profitable so desperate and pathetic it might be but its still making them money so its worth it for them.

[(Anonymous)]

Tbh it seems like everyone I know is excited but I'm just...not. Yes, it looks nice. But even hearing James Earl Jones' voice at the beginning just made it more...why. Like, why is this necessary? What's wrong with the animated one exactly that it's good enough to copy shot by shot but has to be 'updated' with CGI? It just feels like another example of animation age ghetto, that somehow being live action (well, CG) makes it 'better' or more 'mature.' I don't necessarily think this one will actively suck the way that, say, the live action Beauty & the Beast did, it just feels like it's entirely unnecessary and has no reason to exist other than Disney trying to milk more dollars out of beloved properties.

+1

[(Anonymous)]

I'm with you, all the way. Unnecessary is exactly the word.

+2

[(Anonymous)]

same. i don't see what's so wrong with the 2D animation and why la/cgi is so much more "mature". i imagine they'll remove the songs that made the film entertaining for younger children as well.

[(Anonymous)]

Same. Saaaaame.

I hate when I see people call it the "live-action" or "real" version too. Like, that shit looks faker to me than the 2-D cartoon.

[morieris]

So I'm stuck on you watching this entire trailer and not realizing it looked different from the hand drawn one.

You just walked in from another dimension when the photorealistic CGI Lion King came out in 94.

+1000

[(Anonymous)]

Same.

[(Anonymous)]

Same. I had to read that part of the secret a couple times to make sure that's what they were actually saying. wtf

[philstar22]

I'm just really excited for this. I think they can make it work. They made the Broadway adaption work. The Broadway musical is amazing. So I think they can make a live action version work too.

[dinogrrl]

I think it's going to work (well, I hope), but I'm also not expecting it to be the same Lion King movie I saw as a kid, even ignoring the traditional vs CGI differences. Can't be any more disappointing than the 3D version of the '94 movie was, at any rate.

[(Anonymous)]

Sadly, it's not live action, just CG. If they'd actually trained a live baboon to hold a real lion cub out over a crowd of actual, live-action bowing African megafauna -- well, that would really be something.

[(Anonymous)]

They'll keep doing "photorealistic" 3D animated and live-action versions as long as they keep making money doing it.

On the plus side, all the boffins that Disney/Pixar throws at these problems might create code that trickles down to other media.

[(Anonymous)]

Pretty sad that Disney's stuck plagiarizing their 20 year old movie that plagiarized a 70 year old comic.

[(Anonymous)]

which plagiarized Hamlet

while we're at it

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, I didn't know Kimba was a scene-by-scene rip-off from Hamlet eith the exact same set up and characters.

[(Anonymous)]

Honest question: Who're the equivalents to Timon and Pumbaa in Kimba?

[(Anonymous)]

And were they ripoffs of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, thank you.