The off topic thread #2

[Fryer Tuck]

Disney doing a live action Lion King. Made so much sense after Jungle Book. Very keen.

OK, I kinda get Alice in Wonderland (even if its a 'sequal' and the Jungle Book, (Beauty and Beast actually will suit this very well, I'd say), but the Lion King? So this is going to be like Babe in regards to focus (No kid wondering about the green screen to focus on). That's a bit... well, I guess it's right there for all to see, just a cash grab. I will admit this LA version of the Jungle Book version was done much better then the original (also considering that Disney started to taper away in the 60s).

The Lion King was extremely well done. I don't think there's really much more you can do to 'improve' on it. It's just an attempt to smash in the cash while the LA remakes have some popularity about them.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

I didn't rate the live version of the Jungle Book. The voices were crap - the 1967 cartoon had much better voice characters. Perhaps though it's just what you grow up with. Making Kaa a female was shit

 

[Quivorir]

Yeah but you also seem to hate anything that is popular.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

Yeah but you also seem to hate anything that is popular.

That's not a bad thing

 

[Quivorir]

It is when you let it cloud your judgement. Just because its popular doesn't make it bad.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Yeah but you also seem to hate anything that is popular.

Then he should like you then

Agree on the Lion King. Leave it alone.
There is nothing they can do that will be better than what Irons, Earl Jones, Atkinson etc did as voice actors. Don't mess with the first film I ever saw

 

[Fryer Tuck]

I didn't rate the live version of the Jungle Book. The voices were crap - the 1967 cartoon had much better voice characters. Perhaps though it's just what you grow up with. Making Kaa a female was shit

I'll give credit for the voices selected, but the story left a lot to be desired. It was just running the personalities of Baloo, King Louie, Kaa, and Bageera. Shere Khan in that film left a lot to be desired. Kaa did more then Khan, and that's just not right.

Then again, Kaa as Winnie the Pooh was just weird. Funny, but... nah.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

It is when you let it cloud your judgement. Just because its popular doesn't make it bad.

I've explained the reason I didn't like it and it was nothing to do with it being popular. Although I will say when somethings hyped, you can end up disappointed which may have been a factor also

 

[WealstoneRaider]

I'll give credit for the voices selected, but the story left a lot to be desired. It was just running the personalities of Baloo, King Louie, Kaa, and Bageera. Shere Khan in that film left a lot to be desired. Kaa did more then Khan, and that's just not right.

Then again, Kaa as Winnie the Pooh was just weird. Funny, but... nah.

Why was King Louie so bloody huge in the film? Was he giant sized in the book?

 

[Quivorir]

I've explained the reason I didn't like it and it was nothing to do with it being popular. Although I will say when somethings hyped, you can end up disappointed which may have been a factor also

Im not talking just about the JB. In my short time here its just something I have noticed of you.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

Im not talking just about the JB. In my short time here its just something I have noticed of you.

Don't know if that's totally true. Bit of a cynic at times I guess - happens when you get older!

 

[Fryer Tuck]

Why was King Louie so bloody huge in the film? Was he giant sized in the book?

There wasn't a King Louie in the Book (Just like how the Vultures were meant to be voiced by the Beatles, King Louie was meant to be voiced by Louie Armstrong, who was keen, but well... I'm sure someone will kind kind enough to bring the 'Adam Goodes' incident on why Disney pulled out of that (The character's got Armstrong's mannerisms too.)

What there was in the original book was a larger monkey, who was said to be king, so the LA version got that right. (The animated version uses Orang-Utans, which is just plain wrong since they're not native to India. Though it is unknown which monkey species in Seeonee Kipling used to describe them.) The only problem is... the ape that the LA version uses... has been extinct for 9 million years. I guess it's just to show that people at the may not have been aware that they still lived becaues of how harsh the Indian Jungle can be. At least that species was found in India at the time.

So yeah, the LA version better matches the original book, though the size is exaggerated.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

There wasn't a King Louie in the Book (Just like how the Vultures were meant to be voiced by the Beatles, King Louie was meant to be voiced by Louie Armstrong, who was keen, but well... I'm sure someone will kind kind enough to bring the 'Adam Goodes' incident on why Disney pulled out of that (The character's got Armstrong's mannerisms too.)

What there was in the original book was a larger monkey, who was said to be king, so the LA version got that right. (The animated version uses Orang-Utans, which is just plain wrong since they're not native to India. Though it is unknown which monkey species in Seeonee Kipling used to describe them.) The only problem is... the ape that the LA version uses... has been extinct for 9 million years. I guess it's just to show that people at the may not have been aware that they still lived becaues of how harsh the Indian Jungle can be. At least that species was found in India at the time.

So yeah, the LA version better matches the original book, though the size is exaggerated.

You gotta remember the cartoon was primarily for kids, so things like the Orang-Utan's not being native to India is not overly a concern. Burma isn't it where they are from - not far off!

Visually the film was excellent - but sorry the cartoon is where it's at for me because of the voices. Sher Khan, Baloo, King Louie, Kaa will always be those original voices for me.

 

[Fryer Tuck]

You gotta remember the cartoon was primarily for kids, so things like the Orang-Utan's not being native to India is not overly a concern. Burma isn't it where they are from - not far off!

Visually the film was excellent - but sorry the cartoon is where it's at for me because of the voices. Sher Khan, Baloo, King Louie, Kaa will always be those original voices for me.

Even then, that's no excuse. If anything, Disney's influence meant they could give fame to just about anything. About 1700km is a very fair distance I would think (The story takes place in Central India.) A little bit extra helps.

Fair enough, I mean, when you think of the Jungle Book, you're going to think of the personalities, well, for the animated version. It also doesn't help that the singing in the LA version leaves a lot to be desired either for what was the most memorable part of the Jungle Book for the majority of people.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Fryer Tuck. Um.. Err. The Good Doctor would appreciate if you didn't pick apart my favourite animated film for inaccuracies.

Don't bloody ruin this for me

 

[WealstoneRaider]

Even then, that's no excuse. If anything, Disney's influence meant they could give fame to just about anything. About 1700km is a very fair distance I would think (The story takes place in Central India.) A little bit extra helps.

Fair enough, I mean, when you think of the Jungle Book, you're going to think of the personalities, well, for the animated version. It also doesn't help that the singing in the LA version leaves a lot to be desired either for what was the most memorable part of the Jungle Book for the majority of people.

Yeah spot on about the singing. That's a big part of it. And the humour.

Best Disney cartoon for me. I also like Robin Hood. Very underrated that one!

 

[Fryer Tuck]

Fryer Tuck. Um.. Err. The Good Doctor would appreciate if you didn't pick apart my favourite animated film for inaccuracies.

Don't bloody ruin this for me

Wait... you're telling me the Jungle Book is your favourite; or it's another Disney film, but you don't want me to bring the tweezers out on it?

As I probably noted, little details are not going to have a RUINED FOREVER impact on me (come on, have some leeway), but if done right, well, it just increases my opinion and respect towards a piece of work.

Yeah spot on about the singing. That's a big part of it. And the humour.

Best Disney cartoon for me. I also like Robin Hood. Very underrated that one!

Robin Hood? Now you're speaking my language. Really like the film and well, introduced the whole Robin Hood story and the whole Richard, bit of a pity it suffered from the cut budgets at the time (recycled animations, poorer quality finish), but I think it's certainly a good effort, though just a bit lacking

Biggest Annoyance: What the actual hell happened to Maid Marian?! She had some promise (though I do wish they expanded her backstory with Robin more) and she just disappears in the third act altogether before coming back to be married.) Not going to lie, I like Russell Crowe's Robin Hood purely because of Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Maid Marian.

Kinda like my thoughts on the LOTR trilogy, I would enjoy the film a lot more if you cut out all the Hobbit parts (both parties).

 

[jod23]

Congrats. Can I hit you up for some LFC travel packages

No doubt mate!

Good luck Jodly. Do you know when you'd be expecting to hear back?

Cheers mate. They said later this week. So I guess today or tomorrow. The interview was on Tuesday.

 

[glenferry23]

Good luck Jod. Hopefully is that career change you've been looking for.

 

[jod23]

Good luck Jod. Hopefully is that career change you've been looking for.

Cheers mate, it will be a big step in a very different direction for me. Wait and see though.

 

[SM]

Surprised at the reaction to that news, thought Lion King was an obvious option to do after JB, and think I might have even mentioned it at the time. Brilliant movie, and brought to life with the same effects as Jungle Book could be really great to see. Don't see it as a cash grab so much as a reimagining of a bunch of classic Disney movies, which Beauty and the Beast is doing too.

 

[SM]

Why was King Louie so bloody huge in the film? Was he giant sized in the book?

In the animated film the Orangutang tears down the temple lol, clearly they wanted to reimagine it in a way that was actually believable. Or else the Temple is the flimsiest thing ever.

 

[Cooldude]

Lion King is the logical followup to Beauty and the Beast

If it works in a live musical I can't see how it won't work for a live action, it'd be just fine, can't wait for it

 

[Fryer Tuck]

Also, good luck Jod, hope you get it!

Surprised at the reaction to that news, thought Lion King was an obvious option to do after JB, and think I might have even mentioned it at the time. Brilliant movie, and brought to life with the same effects as Jungle Book could be really great to see. Don't see it as a cash grab so much as a reimagining of a bunch of classic Disney movies, which Beauty and the Beast is doing too.

Well, I can think of at least five films [Without mentioning Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians, or Tarzan]; (The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, The Rescuers [This one if it is anything like Down Under, I think will be brilliantly done], Pocahontas (Redemption), and the Emperor's New Groove] that would be better suited.

The Lion King's big problem is well, it doesn't really have any 'human' elements, which I think would best highlight the LA format. Jungle Book meets the minimum requirements since the story focuses on Mowgli and his interactions with the animals. The Lion King is just all animals, and only that. Sure, they might do some fancy set pieces and some brill scenery, but I think it kinda misses the point on the reimagination front, which is, you want the CG element make it feel like it can be a part of the human element. You're going to get more of a connection with Mogwli then you are going to with Simba, and that's the magic of the reimgination of the movie comes in.

That why I think a film like Pete's Dragon benefits better from this reimgination then the Lion King.

Beauty and the Beast makes perfect sense as it is the right balance between human and CG elements, and I would say the next logical movie would either be The Little Mermaid or Aladdin from there.

Unless there is some other developments in story or characters that will be explored, I can't see how they will fully recapture the magic (also remembering that Lion King came out in 1994!)

 

[Cooldude]

Doubt it's very wise to do Pocahontas with the current political climate, it got enough stick when it first came out

I'm willing to put very good money on Aladdin being the next one after Lion King