I wish they'd remake their kind of sucky movies. Wouldn't that make more sense? To take something mediocre and make it better?
I watched The Lion King enough as a kid to tell you that this is a shot for shot remake, like the flamingos are flying in the same formation. But now in live action. But the live action looks less mysterious and grandiose than the animated version.
I can already see areas where some expression of a character is lost. (When baby Simba is held above the crowd of animals, there's a sequence where he looked left and right, downward, with wide eyes, in a 'what the heck is happening' moment. A subtle humorous moment. They tried to recreate it with CGI Simba but it doesn't come across because a real lion cub has much smaller eyes than animated Simba.)
Like the lifeless-action BATB. "You'll take your photorealistically stiff dresser- and clock-people and you'll like them!"
Yeah . . . I was thinking the other day, it's always "here's a live action remake of this animated classic", never "here's an animated remake of this animated classic." And it frustrates me because it seems dismissive. Like "Okay, you're allowed to watch this one, grown-ups, because now it's LIVE ACTION, not kiddie crap." Without ever asking "would this story be better served by realism or by animation?"
I feel like I'm in a museum where the curator is systematically replacing every painting with a photograph of the same subject matter and assuring me it's better.
Edited by blueskyscribe, 24 November 2018 - 11:04 AM.