Maybe it's because I'm on mobile, but yeah, it just looks like more stylized CG. Like of course people will prefer one or the other, but there's nothing disturbing about how it looks.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Deep Faked Lion King.
- Thread starter soulmatic
- Start date
Yes, I would imagine there was a similar process to finding the right style guide/art bible.
To your latter point, yes, neither reviewed well; both made $1B dollars.
yeah man people never ever use hyperbole for comedic purposes. ever.
Really all this does is emphasise how pointless the whole movie is, the more you make it look like the original, the better it is...follow that to the logical conclusion and just don't make the film.
I'm not arguing that Disney don't have focus groups lol. Everything they do now is by consensus.
However, regardless of how much money a movie makes it doesn't mean it was the best creative direction. Every Disney movie pretty much makes $1B now and ANY remake like these will make a fortune because its entire value is in nostalgia. Anecdotally, I know my kid certainly enjoyed the originals far more, so these movies likely won't make him crave another remake in 30 years time.
Why are so many people overreacting? This is a great achievement/effort.. regardless of if you think this design choice works or not.
Lion King was going to do numbers simply off the strength of the original.
But people will forget this movie even existed by the end of the year.
Which just doesn't work conceptually. The Lion King is formalist and expressive with wonderfully colorful scenes that border on the surreal at times. Turning into a hyper-realistic documentary was a terrible creative decision because it undermines everything that made the original so popular.
I'm merely looking at the two examples in this thread. I have no doubt that Disney went through an exercise of doing tests within Disney (not necessarily focus groups) to see if a visual style similar to the deepfakes example would work and they decided it would not.
Then, after the movie releases, people unhappy with creative direction Disney took, decided to make it the "right way" when that way was likely discarded early into prepro.
Anecdotally, I have no interest in either of these remakes but it's hard to deny that they still found an audience.
Good lord y'all are a hyperbolic bunch. For a deepfake done by one guy it's actually not that bad. Really I think Pumba is the only one that looks off. I imagine if this was the direction they'd gone in instead of the photo-realistic version, the VFX crew could have found a way to make it look incredible.
They were always going to have an audience. Whether it be people who were generally interested or people who wanted to watch it out of interest in a train wreck.
It's easy money for Disney. I don't really care for them either but watched them with my son knowing that they would never compare to their predecessors, which is kind of the point and dare I say the expectation most people had when entering the cinema. Aladdin was woeful, the Lion King was merely ok but off-putting to watch. Doing what is effectively a musical with an animation technique that doesn't really allow expression is a challenge the movie never overcame, pre-screening and focus groups would never effectively assess that before it was too late anyway.
The baby simba sucks but adult simba and scar ain't bad. It kinda sickens me that they remade that movie SOOOO closely that it mirrors so many shots.
I remember when companies just....rereleased old movies instead of spending billions to remake them, usually worse than before. Amazing.
Oh well. These movies aren't for me, I get it I get it. I'm not sure who they are for, but it's not me.
I remember when companies just....rereleased old movies instead of spending billions to remake them, usually worse than before. Amazing.
Oh well. These movies aren't for me, I get it I get it. I'm not sure who they are for, but it's not me.
The thumbnail is super rough.
But otherwise I genuinely like it. 🤷♂️
Also this:
But otherwise I genuinely like it. 🤷♂️
Also this:
Both films were well received, by audiences. Both films are (very) financially successful.
Sure, if you consider 50's on RT and Metacritic and 7 on IMDB which is just above the median as "well received". It's middling at best.
Both got an A CinemaScore and did over 1B. Box office performance is the best way to judge a film's audience reception.
They're both financial hits, it's really as simple as that.
I'll entertain the audience online review angle though and point out that Aladdin did over 90 percent and LK is currently sitting at 88 on RT.
The 50ish percents on RT/meta are critics, not audiences.
Random online reviews have proven to be an unreliable factor in determining general audience reception.
I hate to be that guy, but it looks better in motion than the original test shots.
Still It doesn't fix that I'd rather just watch the cartoon if it was going to tread that close to the original.
Still It doesn't fix that I'd rather just watch the cartoon if it was going to tread that close to the original.
Yeah. These changes look much, much better to me.
Fucking amen.
Transformers Age of Extinction grossed over $1.1 billion, how was it received?
Financial success is one measure, it's obviously extremely important but these are also remakes of beloved movies. Nostalgia gifts a huge part of that financial success. Regardless of the actual quality of the films, you will get people buying tickets.
All of that is irrelevant to my initial point though, which is regardless of whether tested internally or not, it doesn't mean the chosen direction of the movies was the best choice, it's just the one we have.
What the hell is the point of doing this?
You already have the cartoon version of this film, why use that same design turned CGI.
Just go with something new if you want to re-imagine the movie.
You already have the cartoon version of this film, why use that same design turned CGI.
Just go with something new if you want to re-imagine the movie.
Odd to me that you see people's criticism of the redesigns as some sort of defence force for Disney. It's the nature of ERA to be exceptionally hyperbolic - everything is either a zero or 200% here. It's the site where a 30fps game is 'literally unplayable' or a 'literal slideshow'.
I have no stake but I hate the look of the redesigns. I wouldn't go so far as to say nightmare fuel but there's definitely some uncanny valley effect or something that I find to be very off putting. Personally I don't see the point in redoing a movie like the lion king with reality influenced CGI and then keeping the cartoony style. I also don't get the soulless criticism. They look like animals and I certainly would describe animals as looking soulless.
I don't hate it like some people here but I would not see a movie that looked like that either. I would just want to watch the original movie.
As with a lot of deepfakes the stuff that's changed has a really uncanny effect to the lighting, especially around the eyes. For as much as I dislike this film I won't deny I'm quite impressed at how natural it all looks; shame it was in the service of something that already exists in a superior form.
As with a lot of deepfakes the stuff that's changed has a really uncanny effect to the lighting, especially around the eyes. For as much as I dislike this film I won't deny I'm quite impressed at how natural it all looks; shame it was in the service of something that already exists in a superior form.
Oh not just this, this is just one of an increasing number of things Disney related, ex/ Box Office threads now are at times unreadable with how much people want to wet themselves over Disney "owning". The absolute Zealot Stannery ( for Disney of all things) makes me think there must be dozens of people here with an actual financial interest in Disney or else it's just ... wow. I'll shut up now though this is way OT.
What is it with Era/the internet in general that if you don't agree with a dissenting opinion you're automatically part of some defense force?
I'd be with the critics of this movie's art direction if they were championing a decent looking alternative but this looks worse than both versions. Disney and Faveru set out to make a photo-realistic David Attenborough style movie. You're free to not like it but on an art direction level its atleast consistent. No one is saying the remake is perfect I would have much preferred a more abstract Broadway inspired remake but placing the 2D designs into a hyper real world is really ugly/redundant.
What is it with Era/the internet in general that if you don't agree with a dissenting opinion you're automatically part of some defense force?
I'd be with the critics of this movie's art direction if they were championing a decent looking alternative but this looks worse than both versions. Disney and Faveru set out to make a photo-realistic David Attenborough style movie. You're free to not like it but on an art direction level its atleast consistent. No one is saying the remake is perfect I would have much preferred a more abstract Broadway inspired remake but placing the 2D designs into a hyper real world is really ugly/redundant.
It's not just over TLK, it's a lot of things and I t's been growing steadily over the years, especially with every new Marvel announcement.You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. I can put it in no simpler terms than Disney has basically became the Nintendo of OT. Now everyone stop quoting me and derailing please lol.
I didn't like it too much when I saw the stills in the previous thread, but I think I'm on board? It obviously needs to be refined quite a bit, but yeah.
I think my biggest complaint is the brown used for Pumba and Scars recolor look a bit too reddish and saturated for my taste. For what it's worth, I liked the remake quite a bit.
I think my biggest complaint is the brown used for Pumba and Scars recolor look a bit too reddish and saturated for my taste. For what it's worth, I liked the remake quite a bit.
I'm looking at Mojo right now. It did poorly domestically (after a 100M opening), but overall, WW, audiences liked it. Even if we remove.. let's say, 200M from China's 320M total, it's still sitting at 650M OS.
The bottom line is that it made 1.1B off of a 210M budget, which is a shining success, even if it did badly and was poorly received at home. If OS success was mirrored with DOM, you'd be looking at a movie sitting in a top 10 spot of all time.
It did 78% of its total overseas, which means most people who saw it enjoyed it (there are a hell of a lot more people OS than DOM), because it was able to break 1B despite a weak performance at home.
You don't do those numbers without generally being liked. Audiences want to be entertained for a few hours, they don't run home and upload angry YT videos and break down each frame of the film. Their standards are incredibly low. It's still sitting at the 27th biggest movie of all time.
Audiences gobbled up the prequels, just to give you an idea of how much different communities like ours are from most people who fork over money to sit in a theater.
Also, in regard to Aladdin and Lion King, you'd have an argument if they tanked after opening weekend. I think we may have to look at the numbers Disney remakes achieve and accept the fact people generally like them. It's pretty simple. They continue to make them because people continue to see them long after the initial weekend.
Last edited:
Thanks for the nightmaresI saw the Lion King musical once, and not one of those people had sad anime eyes.
1/5
Edit* There we go, I've fixed the Lion King musical
