Here's your mufasa death scene bro
SPOILERS come on man
Finally an excuse to post this
That just made my morning.
I would rather just watch real lions.
LOL
>I know if I spoil a scene from a shot for shot remake of a 30 year old movie then maybe it WON'T make a billion
Just when I thought you Yea Forums retards couldn't get any more pathetic
I thought this was one of those Blender shitpost videos for a moment
>the way he just throws his whole body back as he falls
I don't know the "realistic" way of how a lion would die falling off a cliff, but goddamn that shit was hilarious and took me out of the moment
It would probably look something like this.
>He doesn't think OP is sharing just for the fun factor but thinks he is just to "spoil" so 10 people don't go to this
A-are you mentally ok?
>tfw kingdom hearts two has a better recreation of the scene
youtube.com
ok maybe not, but its still about par with it which is really fucking sad
You didn’t have to click it, user.
I like how the leopard just casually walk away and looking back at the cameraman like 'it's no big deal lol'.
Snow leopards may not be as badass as tigers or lions but they are fucking durable.
I didn't realize the movie actually WAS a shot for shot remake, right down to the zoom-out from Simba witnessing his death.
That said, what the fuck were they thinking by having Scar bitchslap Mufasa? Lions can take a slapping; it was clear in the original movie that Scar fucked on Mufasa's front paws in order to have him loosen his grip and thus pull him up and out into the stampede. Here, Scar slaps Mufasa and somehow that causes him to fall back like an old Western film where one shot from a gun throws you right out of a window.
The dude they bring in to voice Scar sounds so generic.
If they really want to recast Scar they should just bring in Benedict Cumberbatch. At least he can sound sinister and it's not the first evil big cat role he gets to play anyway.
Makes the directors steadfast claims that its a "live action" film even more laughable
So what exactly do you think is the rational behind making stuff like this? Because I don't think this is just people who are bad at this making a shitty version of a good movie.
This is literally the biggest company in the business of entertainment, who could afford to hire anyone they want and throw as much money as they need at anything to turn it into exactly the product they want it to be. What confuses me is that there must be a very assured line of reasoning behind why everything is so fucking lame. I really just want to see the internal memo that explains why everything is being turned into something so lame.
I actually think that it's pretty ok for a lion 'realistically' falling off a cliff, especially since we only see a split second of it.
The problem is that putting human voices over pseudo-photorealistic animals looks fucking absurd. Your brain rebels against what it's seeing.
Are mousefags the most pathetic "human" beings in existence?
You can't post things for fun anymore?
Because you're going to see it anyway dupshit that's why
why would he need to?
I haven't seen any of these live action remake movies though. Movies are expensive as hell and I'm not dropping $17 to see a worse version of a movie I've already seen.
It's the slow motion NOOOOOOO. It's like something out of a shitty straight to DVD movie.
>This is literally the biggest company in the business of entertainment, who could afford to hire anyone they want and throw as much money
Disney's entire failing is that they have no actual artistry, only money.
I can't see this getting more than Best Visual Effects at the Oscars.
The money. It's Disney exploiting nostalgia.
It's arguably an attempt to cash in on the Wave of Woke that "Black Panther" implicitly spawned. A lot of press for BP was its almost-all black cast, so another movie should have the same effect, right?
I do wonder if they actually use real lion sounds in the movie at points. I haven't seen anything suggesting such is the case, though it doesn't help that the marketing for the movie has barely shown anything of interest.
>fall over from 100ft
>walk it of like it ain't no thing
Brilliant.
It still tickles me looking at big cats and seeing the similarities to domestic cats in them.
those talking animals look fake as shit
Disney has a gorillion dollars but can't make realistic animation for talking? what is this a joke?
Too bad it's boring as hell. It's animated, they already have cringey CGI going on in Hakuna Matata. Why not have nuScar here do the exact same thing he did in the original? Who cares if it is physically possible or not? That's what makes the original memorable, because it's not something you expected.
>desna | 19 | he/him | pretty boy enthusiast | RT HEAVY/NSFW | (was gaydarkpit) | i organization xiii | dnfi u ship akrk
If someone like this thinks your movie is trash, you know you hit rock bottom.
litterally wut?
>LONG
>LIVE
>THE KING!!!
Where’s the stampede?
>AAAAAAAAAAAA-
Somewhere in that big blur he's falling into. I guess they didn't want to animate each individual wildebeest so they just made a Galactus cloud instead.
>Scar doesn't even look like he just threw his brother off a cliff
>he just stands there as if his model wasn't rigged
>Let's make turn a animated movie with no humans photorealistic they said. It'll be fun they they said
Man, between this scene and the version of Be Prepared it feels like they took all the personality out of Scar to make him generic villain lion. They did that to Jafar too - I thought the villains were part of the Disney marketing brand why are they making them so bland?
It's the delivery that annoys me.
In the original, Scar sounds smug, menacing. The new one says THE KING too loud. Also, did he just bitch slap him?
You are now aware that the BBC try to made this scene in live action 15 years ago. Enjoy.
youtu.be
Also one of the lions is voiced by Sean Bean.
No he's a cat, so it's a pussy slap. Then again the cgi is so bad it might as well have been a puppet.
Pinokio slap
>emotionless face from scar
>CAT SLAP
>photorealistic lion falling backwards
I CANNOT STOP LAUGHING THIS IS AMAZING
>I thought the villains were part of the Disney marketing brand why are they making them so bland?
They can't have the villains be too charismatic or else people will think the movie's immoral and on their side and kids might emulate them.
Does the sean bean lion die?
Or it could be that a camera which is already blurry in close-up shots isn't actually set up to properly capture the kind of movement that would be happening.
Not that I have any faith in this thing, but judging how a movie looks based on pictures from the cheapest camera available is just dumb.
Theory 1:
This is a pretty straight example of taking a nostalgic property and applying a bunch of focus tested tweaks to try and make it more marketable eg
>some adults are embarrassed to enjoy cartoons, we can't make this one live action but we can make it photorealistic
>movies with black casts have done really well recently, do that and maybe we'll get some good bonus publicity
etc
Theory 2:
Jon Favreau is a crazy person who actually thought a photorealistic lion king was a good idea.
Nope.
But in that clip they have the 'evil' lion voiced by John Hurt die. In case you aren't aware, Hurt has more death scenes that Sean Bean.
They come a little bit later in the video.
I guess they didn't want to actually show him falling into the stampede and just had the void show up first?
I dunno, man.
This is ten times better youtu.be
I didn't watch the clip
Which villain hasn't been completely fucked in the Disney live-action remake? The evil stepmother? Maleficent got gutted by turning into a sympathetic rape victim allegory, Scar, Jafar and Gaston were poorly cast jokes.
>>some adults are embarrassed to enjoy cartoons, we can't make this one live action but we can make it photorealistic
Yet the Hakuna Matata sequence is cringey as fuck. How is that supposed to be any more mature than the original cartoon?
No one cares and Sean Bean can always film more death scenes unlike John Hurt
what the fuck two mufasas?
>15
I can let the quality fly, that and they don't have Disney budget
>Jon Favreau is a crazy person who actually thought a photorealistic lion king was a good idea.
With these big budget Disney garbage, I wonder how much creative input a director even has. I imagine he was just told by producers to make a "live-action" Lion King movie, and he thought, hey I don't even have to actually direct a real life actor like on Jungle Book, so he just kind of made money sitting around in a voice acting studio, and telling CGI artists they're doing a good job every now and then.
I don't get how it looks worse than the Jungle Book remake. The characters emoted in the Jungle Book remake, why don't they do it here? Was it the live-action Mogwli saving that movie?
Ursula's DOA since she's played by Melissa McCarthy.
Who's left? Frollo?
Never saw Cinderella's live action remake, so can't answer that. Shere Khan mostly survived. But he lost a lot of his smug charisma, which made him fun and scary at the same time because of how confident he was.
Lady Tremaine
Cate Blanchett plays it less as a cold disciplinarian, and more self indulgent and greedy, but she absolutely pulls off a wicked step mother.
I don't get why they cast a white woman as Ursula after casting a black woman as Ariel. If there is a Disney character that screams sassy black woman, it's Ursula.
>I actually think that it's pretty ok for a lion 'realistically' falling off a cliff
It's not. All cats do the same thing when they fall, and that's twist their neck to spin their bodies with their feet to the ground.
That's why Mufasa falling backwards without any attempt to twist looks so unnatural and hilarious.
Casting a black woman as the villain would be racist.
I always have trouble uploading WebMs.
Gantu in Lilo and Stitch, but that'll be more of a CGI disaster than character assassination.
Shan Yu might be fine? He was cold and calculating, quiet, not a particularly humorous, boisterous type.
Because The Jungle Book could only really improve somewhat on the original (though the fun carefree nature was definitely lost in the remake; tried way too hard to be serious, and botched the ending).
The original TLK however was already fantastic to begin with, there isn't much else that could be done to polish it.
What if that didn't work though? Forcibly pulling his claws off the cliff ensures he falls, slapping him might have surprised him, but not enough to let go, what would you do then Scar?
Scar sounds like a fucking nerd. Why is his voice shaking like he is fucking crying? Where is the smug?
I don't mind them changing the way Scar makes him fall. Mufasa's clinging onto the cliff very precariously and he asks Scar's help because he's about to lose his grip. I'm sure slapping him in the face would've worked just as well.
This movie exists because it's guaranteed to make money. The original animation was popular enough to become the second-highest-grossing movie at the time, and the teaser and trailer of the remake reached the top-10 list of most viewed movie trailers ever.
It's possible Irons was so done with this script he was on the verge of crying during recording.
I'm not the only one who wished they doubled down on the realism of this, right? If you're gonna do this, go all in.
>no voiced dialogue at all, just animal noises
>no music
>story completely retooled to be as realistic as possible with believable animal behavior
It's just half-assed the way it is now.
That would have been a more interesting, borderline art-house film, but it would have been a massive flop.
based and DEHpilled
I'm with you there, but where the hell are you that it costs you $17 to see a movie? Last movie I saw cost me $15, and that was for a special showing at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood. Tickets at my hometown theater are only $11, and even then, as a college student I get a discount.
>photorealistic Mufasa falls straight back, landing on his back
Animated Mufasa doing that was fine because they were so expressive and altered you could see them as human
In this they're cats, and that's not how cats fall, it makes the whole thing look uncanny and combined with the AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH it's fucking hilarious.
Pic related is how cats fall. All cats. All the time. They twist their neck to torque their bodies upright and then try to break their fall by spreading out their limbs.
Now see, I'd watch the fuck out of that.
I used to watch nature documentaries all the time and loved seeing the little stories real animals go through.
The problem is that normies wouldn't give a shit and the film wouldn't make fat wads of cash.
>Long live the king
>aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Ejiofor is Scar this time
Is that the Pokemon GO kid?
What's he up to now?
now see that gives you an even better explanation.
>I wonder how much creative input a director even has.
It's hard to tell because a lot of them look like total cash ins. Was the director overridden, or did they not care?
I think Cinderella did show a fair bit of Kenneth Branagh's input.
On the other hand Alladin showed almost nothing of Guy Ritchie's style.
A fair few of the remakes have hired no name hacks, so its hard to tell what their influence was based on the final product.
>but it would have been a massive flop.
I wouldn't be so sure, people really love big budget nature documentaries. Combining one with an established brand could bear fruit. Maybe they could get David Attenborough to narrate the opening and closing?
>Can You Feel The Love Tonight?
>Plays during the day
Jeeeeesh.
No bedroom eyes either.
If it's any consolation, it's not just the villains who fall victim to genericization. There are making all the characters bland
>Melissa McCarthy
DEAD
ON
ARRIVAl
That woman is like a comedy black hole
The Cinematic equivalent of a fucking fart
Actual nature documentaries with footage of real animals have more genuine emotion than this movie does.
That's not true, farts are funny sometimes
how about the lion king except its done with puppets?
Yeah, true. It's so manufactured and devoid of any fun, yet normies eat it up because they left their nostalgia blinders on. Do they actually remember anything about these remakes months later, as opposed to what they grew up with as children?
I don't throw around words like soulless very often but holy shit, this does not even touch the original movie in the slightest. It's like a photoreal CGI parody.
it just needs Kevin Hart as Sebastian and its overkill
Would Homeward Bound style work, or does it look too old-fashioned today? Like, doing it so that the animals don't move their lips, but they talk as a voice-over anyway. Then the DVD/Bluray could have a bonus track where nobody talks and the story's conveyed by just the animation (or possibly a nature documentary narrator).
I always had a preference for the movies where live-action animals speak with weird telepathic voice-overs like that instead of CGI lip-syncing. I feel like the lip movements make them look off, like they're trying to chew on something.
i believe the Dog's purpose movies were successful
Walk it off, mate.
>Kevin Hart
>Not Will.i.am
>Not an autotuned rap version of Under the Sea
>Not Pitbull
Thanks for introducing me to this. Haven't laughed this hard in awhile.
PETA these days crack down on animals being used in film. That's why we've seen more CGI animals opposed to animal actors.
But yeah, I've always enjoyed the Homeward Bound approach.
I loved it a lot as a kid. As an adult...outside of the obvious documentary footage, it hasn't aged very well lol
The mouth movement is awkward then as it is now. I am more surprised they manage to get that many famous Brits to give their voice for a TV film.
>A litteral paid shill
I burst laughing
Bravo iger
"Okay, it's cool, it's cool. No one saw that. Oh fuck there's a dude filming me oh god damn it"
People think that animation is for kids, and that Real Adults watch "Live Action" realistic stuff.
They hold the original movie in contempt.
25
>disney butchers your childhood stories
>Yea Forums complains
>disney remakes your childhood stories verbatim
>Yea Forums complains
>disney gets nigresses to play the characters in your childhood stories
>Yea Forums complains
Ursula was famously based off white dude Harris Milstead, an actor/musician whose shtick was playing female roles in Drag under the name "Divine"
I like how when you're hanging off a cliff all of a sudden it's "brother!"
1. Disney is going full megacorp and isn’t even putting on a facade of actually making new things.
2. Animation in the states still has a perception problem that hasn’t been solved in this slightest.
And this board wonders why Yea Forums fucks with them so much.
Lmao it's like someone animated that pic of the cat right up against the camera
WHY DID THEY MAKE IT A CAT SLAP?! It's like Scar just booped Mufasa on the nose.
I mean, I know, "realism," but how did Jon Favreau not see this as anything but comical? People literally watch cat videos of them doing this to laugh.
I have the same impression about live action capes, especially the MCU.
>he legit punches him in the face
Oh I'm laffin
t. DCcuck
Would it have killed them to change the daylight lighting a little bit to make the scene a little more dramatic? Good fucking lord.
wtf those are like 4 meters he fell at best
It is so soulless
I must confess that I liked giant baddass singing King Louie
>Not waiting for a recording
>Not pirating
At least this change made sense, so orangutans don't live in India; while Gigantopithicus did.
Does anyone remember that one legendary thread from like two years ago where the OP was the first panel from that picture and then people started posting Lion King and furry porn and even that Spyro Subway comic, and the jannies didn't nuke it for like 24 hours
That was a party and a half.
God this reminds so much to those videos of cats being assholes to each other, this is supposed to look dramatic?
>two years ago
It's ok, the cliffs broke his fall