YMS: Worst movie of all time, because the original is better

>YMS: Worst movie of all time, because the original is better

Attached: i28105432w800h465.jpg (326x465, 26.43K)

It really was not a good movie I'm sorry to say, just Disney flexing tech

it's worse than that really...

It's just a butchering of the source material. I mean I'm not one to complain about a movie existing, but The Lion King 2019 is just so freaking bad.


Attached: a8a.png (201x201, 23.96K)

It's like a rock band from the 90s "re-uniting" with non of the original lineup (except one old, sad guitarist, whose parts are sometimes just taken from old recordings anyway) and re-recording one of their best-received albums for the Top 40 stations.

And also thinking that they did the better job than the original

Why are lions supposed to be typecast as black anyway?

They were still in the afterglow of Black Panther and wanted to get more cred for a majority black cast in an african setting. It's telling that they felt no compunction to do the same for Jungle Book years before by having an all Indian cast.

This movie is inferior in every way to the original and banks so hard on nostalgia it doesn't even try to hide. The opening scene between Mufasa and Scar is a perfect example. The original has no music, and the banter between the brothers is just treated as routine bickering, so even though the audience knows Scar is clearly the bad guy it's understood Mufasa thinks little of his comments and has his guard down. The scene even closes with him and Zazu making jokes about Scar's ego to emphasize they're used to it. The remake on the other hand lays the musical cues on thick, every bit of Scar's dialogue is accompanied by evil sounding score, and Mufasa's entrance is sounded by the classic musical notes he's associate with as if they knew people would be cheering at the return of this familiar character. Mufasa is written as being very aware Scar is out to get him, and the scene ends with Zazu being dismissed as he rattles off some shitty John Oliver improv.

Thanks Adam

I already watched the video Adam, no need to give a synopsis here.

why the fuck his paws look like fingers? I've seen lion cubs up close, that ain't it chief. fuck's sake, use a reference next time you make a billion dollar movie.

>A 2h 40m review of a 1h 58m movie.
>Part 1

Attached: tldr.png (500x661, 167.21K)

Yeah, pretty much. I'm sure the movie is awful but it seems pretty clear that he is very biased against it. Nothing in his review has really convinced me that this movie is the absolute worst. Just seems like a bad cash grab, nothing less.

I mean yes, the original was better

>the original is better
you mean Kimba?

>dog rapist

>Go to the effort of casting all the lions in Africa as black for pure soap boxing
>A month after the movie comes out announce that your remake of the Danish story "The Little Mermaid" is starring a black woman
I laugh every time I think of this

Negromania is very real. It is interesting how US has more Latinos but they have barely any screen time, similar to how the UK has twice as many Asians as blacks, but only negros get hired.
Feel bad for the negros, their ancestors were slaves, and your great-great grandpa's generation made fun of them. That's why everybody should be kind to them and given every opportunity because there is no such thing as anti-racism.

Because the Greeks killed off the European ones

Attached: P. leo Euro distibution.jpg (1000x1866, 770.01K)

Somewhere along the line TLK got co-opted as a fundamentally “black” story. It’s weird for a number of reasons, firstly that it was not written, directed, composed, or primarily voice acted by black people. Also saying that a story literally about wild animals represents a race of people is arguably offensive, and even if it’s purely down to the setting it’s still weird since afroncentric hotep shit is usually seen as dated cringe ideology nowadays even among the most radical race activists.
It probably stems largely from the Broadway production by shitlib boomer white woman Julie Taymor, who did a good enough job appropriating traditional African elements that when Disney marketed it to people as “authentic” they bought it.
It’s just funny to think about how that if early 90s Disney with a vast majority white crew made an African tribe movie about actual people it’d probably be seen now as profoundly offensive to some (especially characters like Rafiki) considering we can’t even run Aladdin without a content warning, but because TLK is about animals and has amassed a cultural presence so far removed from its actual creators and production it’s now embraced as a work belonging to a different group entirely. Probably the most successful peddling of corporate product the Mouse has ever pulled off

Attached: 222DB188-19C8-49C4-8177-844A2ADCB73B.jpg (1200x675, 175.98K)

this is the highest grossing animated film of all time

The new movie fucked up by not changing enough. You can't really change the animation medium and keep the dialogue and story beat essentially the same. A lot of things that worked in the original were because of way 2D animation lets you exaggerate and break reality.

Thanks for showing us how small your attention span is

Attached: 1522958695901.jpg (381x431, 29.85K)

YMS: Worst movie of all time. Not enough fuckable dogs.

At the very least it's presented and structured decently, unlike the ramblings of your typical 10 hour Mauler vid where he only cuts to like the same piece of footage during that entire time.

Kimba Simba? Mmmmm suspicious.

souless uncanny valley shit, so sad money was dumped on this shit.

why did the original make so much money? why did this one?

you could watch something like andrei rublev in that time and get a lot more from it

Besides the stage musical going in on the African art aesthetics, you also had scholars trying to connect the Lion King to the Mali Epic of Sundiata because its a story of kingship about a guy who happened to be nicknamed the Lion King.

>why did the original make so much money?
I don't understand it either, story is pretty one note. The animation above average Disney but far from Ghibli. I guess the characters (Mufasa, Scar, and Timon) are pretty fun, all others are pretty bland, Simba himself is a pretty shit protagonist.

It's probably the music that ties it all together

Worst movie of all time because:
>they didn't bother to record another take when the fucking mic clipped
>some takes were so bad they just clipped voice clips from the original movie to overlay in the new movie
>half the actors do not know how to pronounce the name of the fucking bird, the director didn't bother to correct the actors
>they reused the music that was composed to be complementary to what was happening on the screen, to the frame - on top of a scene where it matches with nothing.
>mixing is fucking horrible, either drowning the voices or the music, depending on whatever mistake they tried to fix in post rather than take the time of re-recording it.
And that's just the summary of one hour of him bitching about the sound. He's right about the cinematography, about the confusing writing, the actors without direction, the lack of expressions crewing everything up... it all boils down to a product that wasn't necessary, that was half-assed, and where no one in the production gave a fuck -- until they had to pretend they did so they could snore entire fruit-bowls of coke at their fucking celebrity-shoulder-patting party.

Nah fuck that shit.
The only respectable type of channels that analyze film are folks like Rob Ager and Ryan Hollinger. They actually explore the ideas the film argues, interpret the themes and look beyond just the plot. Even people like Karston Ranquest are ok even though he is a bit of fag, he at least acknowledges art properly rather than reducing it to a checklist.
Channels like YMS, IHE, Redlettermedia, Mauler, Cinemacins and the overwhelming popular majority are literal cancer and have only served to hinder art.
The worst part is that they're smug dickheads who have brainwashed a generation into viewing art with the lens of a rigid checklist that takes real world logic over thematic logic.
They are unbelievably fucking shit and need to be put out to pasture.

Attached: Ec0kLCaXsAI6kOE.jpg (500x374, 32.25K)

The Lion King remake doesn't really have anything to offer for meaningful analysis for being a slavish copy of the film its remaking. It sold itself as a nostalgic tech demo so people are going to analyze it as a nostalgic tech demo.

>Themes over common sense
Well with that mentality I guess you can enjoy just about anything

>Ryan hollinger
>Lemme just find somewhere to awkwardly jam Stranger Danger & Cinema Nasty

disney was on an absolute roll in the 90s and visually the film looks amazing, also elton john music. just captured the cultural moment

RLM doesn’t even pretend to be legitimate analysis outside of the Plinkett reviews (which are an increasingly distant and small part of their brand, and were still meant to be taken with grains of salt due to the satirical nature of their presentation), it’s a comedy channel with some guys shooting the shit.
They do not present themselves like they possess any authority on the subject and would think you’re a dumb sheep for taking their personal opinions as gospel. Not even vaguely comparable to nitpicky “sins”-type channels that try and argue an objective case for a film being bad

animation is still pretty amazing

“Made fun of them”
user, Great Great grandpas generation would have been things like lynch mobs and companies pretending to want to help them while secretly just planning to use them to break up unions

The Lion King remake is a bad movie because it's a hollow piece of shit that is very surface level with the few themes it does have being banal status quo bullshit that is as simple as saying sugar is sweet.
It doesn't take an hour to say that. Toying with the movie is just stupid and reductive while giving it attention.
Holy fuck you are actually mentally retarded or have autism.
They constantly talk about how they'd fix a movie while constantly ignoring the actual meaning of the piece they're critiquing.
Plinkett reviews are awful but sure you can take them with a grain of salt while the half in the bag stuff they say is just plain retarded.

This is what happens when dumb nerds don't have interests in sports. They latch on to shit like film and view it like how dumb jocks view sport.

>One is a massive Lynchfag
>Their bitching over NuTrek is that it goes against the theme & spirit of Star Trek

yeah this is what art critics are actually meant to do though. imagine if people critiqued shakespeare on plot holes lmfao he would be considered worthless

>Channels like YMS, IHE, Redlettermedia, Mauler, Cinemacins
Those all on completely tier.
Red Letter Media isn't analysis, rather is just Mike and Jay talking about what they thought.
YMS and Mauler are use their nitpicking analysis to "explore storytelling" while missing the forest for the trees
IHE's reviews are similar to Nostalgia Critic in that they focus on making jokes at the expense of film rather than analytical
Cinemasins is worthless nitpick sake of shitty joke

It was a fucking dogshit movie

I would honestly put dogfucker way above mauler as much as it pains me to compliment him. He actually dives into technical aspects of the shitty production whereas mauler is pure autistic cope and shit like
>this was unrealistic

>giving this furry faggot views

Attached: 9457EA70-0553-4267-B62D-5B05131A01A6.gif (243x200, 805.55K)

>Hmm suspicious

What puts YMS over everyone else is that he'll point to interviews in order to explain why the filmmakers made bad decisions instead of just asking "why???" without looking further.
>meant to be taken with grains of salt due to the satirical nature
I don't believe this garbage for second. If this is true than why does everyone parrot them when criticizing the prequels. Face it, RLM is just as shit as Cinemasins.

people parrot them because most of the points made are correct, but they go deep and specific on details that Mike *knows* don’t actually matter in the grand scheme of enjoying a movie because he’s in character as the nitpicky basement dweller who spends the time to make a review longer than the movie

Butthurt wannabe film buff detected. If your characters and plot suck, your themes and imagery won't mean shit.

I only give them a pass because they make it clear they're just doing comedy first and foremost
Jay may act like a pretentious know-it-all faggot sometimes but it's not unbearable

That's literally the same excuse as Cinemasins. Look past the comedy and you'll they're nothing but cynical faggots

Who honestly thought making a realistic Lion King, with realistic expressions and physical movements, was at all a good idea? I hate using "soulless" but this movie perfectly describes how lifeless a adaptation would be when it's source is an animated work.

Lion King is a good reason God why people shouldn't adapt animated works realistically because the art style, tone, and just general atmosphere doesn't work. It was like watching that Live action Ed actress from
Cowboy Bebop. You could be the best actor in the world but portraying anime Ed in real life will always be cringe.

that was a tranny

>The worst part is that they're smug dickheads who have brainwashed a generation into viewing art with the lens of a rigid checklist that takes real world logic over thematic logic.
I mean the same can be said of the guys you liked, it doesn't matter if someone is good or bad at analysis you're always gonna get retards misinterpreting what they say and trying to parrot it

CinemaSins gets butthurt when people don't take them seriously, RLM doesn't outside of Jay getting weirdly defensive about Joker

>RLM just talks about what they liked and disliked about a movie while mainly being comedic about it
>CinemaSins genuinely believes that nitpicking "erm why did the fork on the table in the background turn into a spoon in this one scene? DING!" is actual film criticism
>thinking they're the same

Attached: smug anime girl.jpg (300x350, 22.21K)

YMS, IHE, Ralph and Karsten are the best and entertaining and seem to generally care about film IMO.

If you disagree, that's cool, but I don't get who the fuck people like for film youtubers/critics? None? If so, why does it seem like people follow popular opinion instead of freely judging on your own like these four do, but since they're their own person their videos are their perspective and opinions you can hear and then judge if you agree or disagree?

>thinking cinemasins just isn't an unfunny joke channel and they genuinelly don't believe that makes a film bad when a lot of the stuff they sin is stuff they like
I don't like them too user, but come on, it's obvious.

You think that makes any difference? Their videos are still shit lol

They're not the same but they have same amount of value.