Mufasa: The Lion King | Teaser Trailer

Hollywood writers might be painfully uncreative, but they always manage to make us laugh !

I hope next IP they want to bleed dry is Hokuto no Ken.
At the end of HnK 1, Kenshiro elopes with Julia and he only comes back years later at the beginning of HnK 2.
If i were a screenwriter, i'd use my "imagination" (whatever IA they're using to churn out screenplays) to tell the story of how, after Julia's death, Ken raised their son to become the heir of Hokuto Shinken.

I mean you can go wherever you want with the story it's gold !
So call me Hollywood execs but know there's one artistic decision i won't compromise on, Ken's son must be named Toots.
 
Last edited:
Er, did I just see they put Beyonce and her Blue kid as some sort of 'Ooooh' name drop at the end of the trailer? ROFL.
 
Trogdor1123 said:
They redid lion king?!
Click to expand...

It made like 1.6 billion dollars in the box office.

The-Lion-King-Poster-Simba.jpg
 
Fake said:
They are really running out of the ideias... is there any original ideia left inside this piece of shit of company?
Click to expand...
It's like a cycle, remember the early 2000's when we had a load of sequels like Cinderella 2, Little Mermaid 2, Lion King 1 1/2, Lion King 2, Lion King 3, etc. Once the well runs dry (which sadly feels like a while off if these continue to make bank) then they'll go back to taking a bit longer and coming up with more unique stuff, for example after that shitty phase above we got Pirates of the Caribbean which was a breath of fresh air at the time.
 
I don't get this obsession with the expression-less, realistic looking animals. It's like the only rule, everything else is whatever, they can talk, they can sing, they can act like humans, etc, but they need to look like you are watching an animal documentary for some reason.
 
nkarafo said:
I don't get this obsession with the expression-less, realistic looking animals. It's like the only rule, everything else is whatever, they can talk, they can sing, they can act like humans, etc, but they need to look like you are watching an animal documentary for some reason.
Click to expand...
I think they just invested in the tech for the live action Jungle Book and have been trying to squeeze as much money out if it since then. That's probably what this film is too.
 
InterMusketeer said:
I think they just invested in the tech for the live action Jungle Book and have been trying to squeeze as much money out if it since then. That's probably what this film is too.
Click to expand...
It makes more sense in the Jungle Book because there is a real human protagonist in there, so the realistic animals don't look out of place with him on screen.


UltimaKilo said:
Everyone does, but the fact is that it's way too expensive to do nowadays.
Click to expand...
If you can't have traditional hand crafted animation, you can do expressive characters with CGI too.
 
Last edited:
Finally we can learn about the king in the Lion King. And finally we can learn how Scar got his scar. Finally.
 
nkarafo said:
I don't get this obsession with the expression-less, realistic looking animals. It's like the only rule, everything else is whatever, they can talk, they can sing, they can act like humans, etc, but they need to look like you are watching an animal documentary for some reason.
Click to expand...
My theory is because of laziness... It is easier to capture the movement of an animal and its appearance... Than apart from the capture, animate it so that it looks like the original.
 
I'll watch it but definitely totally missed opportunity to make a timeless 2D animation.

The CG is amazing, no doubt. But it's very boring.
 
HL3.exe said:
Impressive how they've still haven't learned from the critique. Just 0 expressive boring looking photorealistic animals it is then. So stupid.

hero-image.fill.size_1200x900.v1614272031.png

00.jpg
Click to expand...
I'm still shocked and disgusted by the realism of the fishes in the little mermaid... It was disgusting to see the real fishes.
 
Lion king CGI realistic is exciting I think it's planet earth meets lion king the animated series and todays generation is familiar with that CG dynamic.
 
They are keeping some elements of rhe direct to video sequels which is interesting.

No way this makes as much as the last one, but idk. 1.6 billion is nothing to scoff at.

Jungle book honestly had the animals all look pretty good, and I still think itd their best live action attempt.
 
Every animal in this trailer looks as dead and soulless as the Disney board that greenlit this junk.

Bring back quality animation you hacks!
 
March Climber said:
So timeline-wise…

Mufasa: Lion King -> Lion King 1 first half -> Lion King 3 -> Lion King 1 end -> Timon and Pumbaa -> Lion King 2 first half -> Lion Guard first half -> Lion King 2 second half -> Lion Guard second half -> Lion Guard: RotR
Click to expand...
The Zelda timeline seems like a masterclass right now...
 
UltimaKilo said:
Everyone does, but the fact is that it's way too expensive to do nowadays.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure state of the art cgi is more expensive than old school hand crafted animation. The time you are buying from all the expensive equipment alone is enough for the budget to skyrocket. I think the reason they don't do old school is because it's harder and more time consuming and can't be automated the same way cgi does when rendering the scenes. A traditional animation is bottlenecked because real people need to draw all that in-between stuff by hand.
 
Who is making the decision to green light these films?

I'm baffled. I've never seen something that so obviously doesn't work at a fundamental level, and that should've been shot down at the pitch LONG before it ever got to pre-production. This realistic approach is simply incompatible with the necessary conveyance of emotion that is the underpinning of the entire experience. How can they not see this when it's staring them straight in the face, do these people not watch their own films? Sure, the first film did well financially, which I'd argue was driven not by the film's creative merits or the realistic angle, but instead by the nostalgia of an audience who adores the original and knew no better. I went and saw it for those reasons. Now that I've seen how it landed, I've absolutely no interest to see this one, and won't, and predict this will do much worse at the box office. People love the original Lion King for a good reason, and Disney seems intent on doubling down in completely removing that aspect. It's beyond belief at what they're doing here.

I've honestly never seen such cluelessness before. I don't mind the CGI approach, but use a suitable art style that's conducive to what the film needs to sell it. This isn't it, and the last Lion King had no emotional gravitas or impact whatsoever.

What a waste.
 
Last edited:
SoulTas said:
Pretty sure state of the art cgi is more expensive than old school hand crafted animation. The time you are buying from all the expensive equipment alone is enough for the budget to skyrocket. I think the reason they don't do old school is because it's harder and more time consuming and can't be automated the same way cgi does when rendering the scenes. A traditional animation is bottlenecked because real people need to draw all that in-between stuff by hand.
Click to expand...

Nah, hand drawn is significantly more expensive. Disney detailed this when they moved away from it. You no longer have to pay big salaries to artists to spend months doing one scene for the same scene you can flesh out in a week with CGI.
 
I'm pretty sure the remake's success is like 99% just being the second coming of Lion King which made such an unforgettable impact when it came out. Now that everyone got lured into the theater to watch Lion King again, will they be excited about another one in the same style?

Like I'm pretty sure Solo bombing wasn't even the movie being THAT bad, it was just the next film after Last Jedi. They see big numbers, but the bigger your numbers are on a lame movie, the more people you have trained to not give a shit about the next one.
 
In addition to the trash CGI aesthetic...this feels completely wrong for the character.

In the original Lion King, the impression given is that Mufasa is the latest in a long line of kings, not some outsider who recently ascended and started a new kingdom.

Hell, here's what he says to Simba:

the real Mufasa said:
Simba...let me tell you something that my father told me. Look at the stars. The Great Kings of the Past look down on us from those stars.
Click to expand...

The original film gives a sense of a long kingdom, a stable monarchy of the lions. It's such a farce that Disney can't handle that and has to try and make even Mufasa into another "outsider" or orphan.
 
ResurrectedContrarian said:
In addition to the trash CGI aesthetic...this feels completely wrong for the character.

In the original Lion King, the impression given is that Mufasa is the latest in a long line of kings, not some outsider who recently ascended and started a new kingdom.

Hell, here's what he says to Simba:



The original film gives a sense of a long kingdom, a stable monarchy of the lions. It's such a farce that Disney can't handle that and has to try and make even Mufasa into another "outsider" or orphan.
Click to expand...


Cant have an imperialistic monarchy with royal entitlement these days.

The hero has to bootstrap from poverty
 
UltimaKilo said:
Nah, hand drawn is significantly more expensive. Disney detailed this when they moved away from it. You no longer have to pay big salaries to artists to spend months doing one scene for the same scene you can flesh out in a week with CGI.
Click to expand...
Even if this is true, it sucks. I can go back and watch hand drawn animated films from DECADES ago and they still look beautiful, evocative, and as fresh as if they were made today.

But go fire up a CG film from even a decade ago and it looks like a cheap commercial. Go back earlier and it's ATROCIOUS in appearance, even if the story is good.

Obviously there is cheap low frame rate animation everywhere, but my point is the best 2D stuff is timeless, but even the best CG stuff will look dated in time.
 
jason10mm said:
Even if this is true, it sucks. I can go back and watch hand drawn animated films from DECADES ago and they still look beautiful, evocative, and as fresh as if they were made today.

But go fire up a CG film from even a decade ago and it looks like a cheap commercial. Go back earlier and it's ATROCIOUS in appearance, even if the story is good.

Obviously there is cheap low frame rate animation everywhere, but my point is the best 2D stuff is timeless, but even the best CG stuff will look dated in time.
Click to expand...

In a way it's kind of like how 3D gaming seemed advanced at first, but as time went on 3D games aged far more poorly than the last gen of 2D titles. 3D had to mature through a rough phase that kept making it look dated and it's the same with CGI.

But as in 2D vs 3D gaming. 3D should never really fully replace 2D sprites in all applications. But Disney is trying to force the CG like back when 2D games couldn't get greenlit.
 
Bad enough it's not animated, but here's an idea disney, write something new that's actually good......
 
Last edited:
Sad Lion King GIF by ProBit Global
 
UltimaKilo said:
Nah, hand drawn is significantly more expensive. Disney detailed this when they moved away from it.
Click to expand...
Is it though?

Because if we go by the most expensive to produce animated films (according to Wiki), the most expensive traditional 2D western animation film isn't even in the top 20 with a 140m budget vs 260m for the most expensive GCI animated film. Japanese traditional animated movies can't even come close at 53m from Studio Ghibli stuff, some of the most elaborate hand drawn movies. Also, even the most expensive western traditional animated film is heavy on CGI (Treasure Planet). Older stuff that don't feature as much CGI is not nearly at the same production cost level.

And since the original post about this was for the original Lion King (which features very few CGI scenes), here's the comparison between it and the remake:

Original, hand drawn movie: 45m
CGI Remake: 250m

So no, i don't think Disney was right when they said that or maybe it was only the case for the very early CGI films, for instance the original Toy Story film cost around 30m, which is lower than the 45m of The Lion King. But this was very quickly changed with A Bug's Life costing 120m...
 
The faces are definitely more emotive this time.

Beyond that I csnt really make beads or tales of the movie. It looks fine, if a little generic story wise. But maybe it'll be interesting.
 
Call this nitpicking, but how are Mufasa and Scar legends? In the real world they could be seen as legendary characters, but why would they call them that in the movie? Just feels off.

I also can't tell who is who. In the animated film they were very distinct. Scar had black manes. But for the 3D version I guess they changed one of them to be white?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Astartes II – Official Teaser Trailer
1
423
Apocryphon replied
Spartacus: House of Ashur - Teaser Trailer
18
1K
readonly replied
How To Train Your Dragon | Official Teaser Trailer
22
2K
Durien replied
One Battle After Another TEASER Trailer [ Starring Leonardo DiCaprio ] Directed by PTS [ There Will Be Blood ]
1
338
FullMetalx117 replied
Marvel Disney+ Teaser Trailer (new shows/seasons)
2
56
2K
GateofD replied
Top Bottom