100% computer animated

You're just not right, at all. It is not 100% computer animated. It is filmed, on set, with cameras. Obviously there is a shitton of cgi and animation used in production, but it is simply not 100% computer animated.

That's a unique kind of live action/animation hybrid. Real sets, but with no actual actors. What would you even call it?

Do you want to live in a world where CG has completely pushed out traditional animation?

>Why not make a Pride of Baghdad movie instead of this rehash shit

Because using proven IPs with name recognition is much safer. That's why Pixar is making Toy Story 4 instead of something original right now. And why Walt Disney Animation just finished Wreck It Ralph 2 and will be rolling out Frozen 2 next. No room on the schedule for original ideas!

Or maybe he's just repeating what the marketing department told him. You'd have to be an idiot to think for a second someone like John Favreau doesn't know what he's making is mostly animation.

The movie was solicited as a "live action" film before he even signed on to direct. That's all part of Disney's marketing plan. Give the guy a break, he directed the movie and cashed the check. This likely was not a passion project for him. Just going to work.

Attached: 1268544244046.jpg (842x540, 152K)

No, no mocap and no filmed footage except for one scene that's added as sort of an easter egg for people to guess which one it is. Of course, the matte painting decorations will still be using lots of photographed material.

You're wrong, it is not filmed.

You mean CG or 3D CG?

in b4 the live-action scene ends up being figured out immediately because of how much it contrasts every other scene in the film.

>refuses to admit it’s an animated movie and instead calls it a “virtual production”
Animated movies can't get nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, user. They literally invented a new category of "Best Animated Feature" to prevent Pixar from "stealing" the award from "real movies" back in 2001.

And in all seriousness what's the difference between Simba there and all the apes in the Planet of the Apes movies? How much of Avengers: Endgame was 'virtual'? Thanos, Rocket, Hulk ... all 100% motion capture.

My guess is it will be something really obscure, like a bunch of birds flying in the distance or something.

Those all at least use motion capture. Not the case here.

Look at it like this: Would you claim that a movie shot on real locations using real props and acting talent should not be classified as a live-action film, but a real-time stop-motion animated film?

But why is Disney so hard trying to act like it is animation.

I mean it is not animation.

So our current one?

>And in all seriousness what's the difference between Simba there and all the apes in the Planet of the Apes movies? How much of Avengers: Endgame was 'virtual'? Thanos, Rocket, Hulk ... all 100% motion capture.
All those films still have tons of live actors and sets. Lion King supposedly doesn't even have live action backgrounds.

>Yea Forumscksuckers: REEE! This isn't Based Hand Drawn!! IT'S NOT ANIMATION IT'S CGISHIT!!! REEE!!!!
>also Yea Forumscksuckers: REEE! This is 100% computer animated! ANIMATED!!! Why won't they call it what it is??? REEE!!!!

Attached: autism.gif (480x270, 537K)

>All those films still have tons of live actors and sets.
And where, exactly, do you draw the line?

>75% cgi?
youtube.com/watch?v=V5mS7BHmZJI

>95% cgi?
youtube.com/watch?v=6CT5b1Q_QZk

Literally no one said the first thing

>using vfx reels to prove points about amount of cgi used
absolute fucking retard

Didn't Dinosaur (2000) use filmed backgrounds? I wonder why that one is considered an animated film and this isn't.

Because it's marketed towards nostalgia loving millennial who otherwise wouldn't go see an animated remake of Lion King or Aladdin. 20-35 year olds old enough to have nostalgia for the Disney Renaissance films, but not young enough that they'll go see a cartoon on Friday night.

The difference is that Dinosaur was meant to be the big coming out of The Secret Lab, Disney's VFX-house-cum-animation-studio that was meant to revolutionize the industry except it didn't, while the Lion King is just another in Disney's line of live action remakes, just one that can't be made without being basically entirely CGI.

>those 100% cgi scenes are totally irrelevant to THESE 100% cgi scenes
>BECAUSE REASONS!
Autism: it's a hellova drug.

>I wonder why that one is considered an animated film and this isn't.
How much of Avatar was filmed vs animated?

How much of Bedknobs And Broomsitcks? Mary Poppins?

The difference is that something like Infinity War has tons and tons of shots where the live-action elements are the emphasis (or sometimes even the only things in the scene), while Lion King has no live-action, and certainly not as the central focus of the scene.

Thing is, Dinosaur is officially part of the Disney animated canon alongside all the 2D and 3DCG films by the Disney studio. The UK version of the canon swapped it out for The Wild for some reason.

Not sure about Avatar but I think the latter two were always marketed as live-action/animation hybrids, could be wrong on that though.

Gay

>Infinity War has tons and tons of shots where the live-action elements are the emphasis
And it also has ENTIRE SCENES that are 100% animated.

>Lion King has no live-action
Sure, but is that your cut-off? Because the second link was to the vfx reel for Jungle Book which is all animated except for Mogli. The backgrounds, the environments, the other characters, ect.

For some reason the 100% animated scenes in Avengers are "digital vfx" where the 100% animated scenes in Lion King are "digital animation."

It's not nearly as black an white as your autism wants it to be.