Mufasa: The Lion King

[mclay18]

Meh, we got Black is King outta the deal and a whole lotta black folks got to create something actually worthwhile thanks to it.

I guess so. Beyoncé’s involvement just seems like a Disney thing to drum up soundtrack sales/Oscar nom buzz though.

It’s a shame she didn’t invest her work voicing Nala the way she did with “Cowboy Carter.” She’s not a voiceover actor and it showed.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I guess so. Beyoncé’s involvement just seems like a Disney thing to drum up soundtrack sales/Oscar nom buzz though.

It’s a shame she didn’t invest her work voicing Nala the way she did with “Cowboy Carter.” She’s not a voiceover actor and it showed.

Her being a better voice actor wouldn’t have changed my overall impression of the film so I just can’t bring myself to care much about that. But it led to a fantastic collection of music and a beautiful expression of black beauty. That’s my primary takeaway and all that I cared about from that movie.

 

[Lasirius]

Blue Ivy is the “nepo baby” hence her getting a voiceover role opposite her mom.

The trailer looks intriguing but the 2019 remake was an uninspired and limp cash in — everything that made the 1994 film great was stripped out of it. Beyoncé was one of the weakest parts of it, you could’ve gotten a seasoned Black voiceover actress to play Nala at a fraction of the price.

Well yes, I know that. But it’s nothing new in Hollywood or entertainment business (rather a common practice). Why they get the brunt of it?

 

[Arnold Rimmer]

The sooner people ignore @Arnold Rimmer , the sooner I hope he disappears. Just a series of short sighted, petulant takes that never hold up to a bull**** test.

Dude why are you trying to start an argument? I've been doing my best to behave on here and here you are being mean.

 

[blueharvest]

 

[Broseph44]

I enjoy these live action remakes. I haven’t seen them all. I didn’t really wanna check out like Cinderella, Mulan or the Alice In Wonderland films. I haven’t seen Lady And The Tramp, Pinocchio or The Little Mermaid yet. Dumbo was decent.

But I loved Jungle Book, Aladdin, Beauty & The Beast and Lion King. Definitely looking forward to this one though. Are there other live actions upcoming that maybe I’m unaware of or forgot about?

 

[Filmfreak]

Jungle Book is the only one that I thought was very good out of all these cash grabs.

 

[psylockolussus]

I liked Cinderella, Jungle Book and Mulan.

Cruella was a decent film even though I would have preferred an actual adaptation of 101 Dalmatians.

 

[Arnold Rimmer]

I liked Cinderella, Jungle Book and Mulan.

Cruella was a decent film even though I would have preferred an actual adaptation of 101 Dalmatians.

But we got that in 1996, remember?

 

[OrbOfConfusion]

For decades, children didn't have to look at this.

 

[Drizzle]

In defense of Barry Jenkins, I will say that there's more of a chance that this Mufasa movie can at the very least be better than the 2019 remake because they got to create a new story from the ground up instead of adhering to the same story beats as the original. People label the 2019 Lion King as soulless not because of the story or the characters but because it's essentially a carbon copy of the original animated version.

Also the only Barry Jenkins film I've seen is Moonlight but just from that alone I trust his skills as a filmmaker enough to give this the benefit of a doubt. I'm not saying this will be a masterpiece but I'm also not going to outright dismiss it.

 

[Filmfreak]

In defense of Barry Jenkins, I will say that there's more of a chance that this Mufasa movie can at the very least be better than the 2019 remake because they got to create a new story from the ground up instead of adhering to the same story beats as the original. People label the 2019 Lion King as soulless not because of the story or the characters but because it's essentially a carbon copy of the original animated version.

Also the only Barry Jenkins film I've seen is Moonlight but just from that alone I trust his skills as a filmmaker enough to give this the benefit of a doubt. I'm not saying this will be a masterpiece but I'm also not going to outright dismiss it.

How many talented directors made legitimately good live action adaptations for Disney though? David Lowery, Robert Zemeckis, Guy Ritchie, Tim Burton, Marc Forster all made meh to awuful remakes. I always find it weird when people have faith in directors for such projects, not because I have reservations over their talents but because they have an extremely limited sandbox where they can unfold said talents. It's really difificult to be optimistic in such corporate film content with such history.

 

[Cap2024]

How many talented directors made legitimately good live action adaptations for Disney though? David Lowery, Robert Zemeckis, Guy Ritchie, Tim Burton, Marc Forster all made meh to awuful remakes. I always find it weird when people have faith in directors for such projects, not because I have reservations over their talents but because they have an extremely limited sandbox where they can unfold said talents. It's really difificult to be optimistic in such corporate film content with such history.

Unlike those, this isn't an adaptation/remake. There is no source material or story to go off of. Unless there was some hidden Lion King story that told about Mufasa's origins that I'm not aware of. To my knowledge, prior to the film's release - nobody has any idea what that story is.

Thus, saying it's the same as an adaptation would be incorrect. This is more akin to 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' - that takes a source material and shows what happened before it. Or Rob Zombie's 'Halloween 2' - where the first one suffered due to retreating back to the source material at the end, while for the second installment it was all original material and arguably better for it. More recently, 'Wonka.'

One can be wary that Disney will have too much control and it will come out like a corporate product, understandable. But to act as if it's the same as all of the others that had stories to retell would be disingenuous, because here - there is no source material to do that with.

Comparing a direct adaptation with source material to do a carbon copy to - a prequel where no story has prior been told, is an apple to oranges comparison. One has source material to go off of / copy - the other doesn't.

 

[Filmfreak]

Unlike those, this isn't an adaptation. There is no source material or story to go off of. Unless there was some hidden Lion King story that told about Mufasa's origins that I'm not aware of. To my knowledge, prior to the film's release - nobody has any idea what that story is.

Thus, saying it's the same as an adaptation would be incorrect. This is more akin to 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' - that takes a source material and shows what happened before it. Or Rob Zombie's 'Halloween 2' - where the first one suffered due to retreating back to the source material at the end, while in the second installment it was all original material and arguably better for it. More recently, 'Wonka.'

One can be wary that Disney will have too much control and it will come out like a corporate product, understandable. But to say that it's the same as all of the others that had stories to retell would be disingenuous, because here - there is no source material to do that with.

But the source material is not the problem. These types of films have varied from extremely faithful adaptations to doing something quite different. They fail because, despite what Jenkins says, they feel soulless and empty. There's basically zero creativity to most of them and they are being developed as cheap (quality-wise) cash grabs. Disney barely allows any freedom to Marvel and Star Wars, these types of films are the worst offenders in that case. So it makes little to no difference in bringing a director such as Jenkins. He's wasted in stuff like this.

If you really want to differentiate because Mufasa is not a direct adaptation of something, you can compare it to films like Cruella, the two Maleficent films and the two Alice in Wonderland movies. It's not looking good on that front either.

 

[Cap2024]

But the source material is not the problem. These types of films have varied from extremely faithful adaptations to doing something quite different. They fail because, despite what Jenkins says, they feel soulless and empty. There's basically zero creativity to most of them and they are being developed as cheap (quality-wise) cash grabs. Disney barely allows any freedom to Marvel and Star Wars, these types of films are the worst offenders in that case. So it makes little to no difference in bringing a director such as Jenkins. He's wasted in stuff like this.

If you really want to differentiate because Mufasa is not a direct adaptation of something, you can compare it to films like Cruella, the two Maleficent films and the two Alice in Wonderland movies. It's not looking good on that front either.

As stated: "One can be wary that Disney will have too much control and it will come out like a corporate product, understandable."

Cruella would be a more apt comparison. Maleficent is akin to Wicked (which is why I didn't mention Wicked).

While I would label Lion King as "soulless and empty," I would label everything as just rather average films - nothing spectacular with the exception of Pete's Dragon and the Jungle Book which were spectacular; they primarily received reviews stating as much as well.

I should state I'm also not into exaggerations - even if the people making them don't intend for them to be as such - since from having actually seen what is out there; it's certainly not near bottom of the barrel and rather mediocre. Thus, I'm like Robert Downey Jr. who in an interview once said something along the lines of - if you at least entertain me in some way, I'm happy (since many films can't even do that).

 

[Drizzle]

How many talented directors made legitimately good live action adaptations for Disney though? David Lowery, Robert Zemeckis, Guy Ritchie, Tim Burton, Marc Forster all made meh to awuful remakes. I always find it weird when people have faith in directors for such projects, not because I have reservations over their talents but because they have an extremely limited sandbox where they can unfold said talents. It's really difificult to be optimistic in such corporate film content with such history.

Which is why I'm not optimistic about it but also not dismissing it right away either.

 

[CB Fan]

I enjoy these live action remakes. I haven’t seen them all. I didn’t really wanna check out like Cinderella, Mulan or the Alice In Wonderland films. I haven’t seen Lady And The Tramp, Pinocchio or The Little Mermaid yet. Dumbo was decent.

But I loved Jungle Book, Aladdin, Beauty & The Beast and Lion King. Definitely looking forward to this one though. Are there other live actions upcoming that maybe I’m unaware of or forgot about?

I like some of these remakes. Of the ones you haven’t seen Cindy and TLM should be seen next. Cindy is near perfect and TLM has some issues but I think its take on the love story is better than the original.

As for soulless cash grabs it’s whatever, perhaps those people complaining should put their energy into actually seeing original films. Last month alone I was just in Monkey Man, Challengers, Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, and Abagail. All of those are “original” and had good critics ratings yet there were lots of seats unfilled and they didn’t do that great at the box office, so people keep saying give us original stuff but don’t show up then wonder why studios put out more of the same. Since 2021 Disney itself released original films Raya, Encanto, Strange World, and Wish and yet none of those films did well at the box office.

I’m sure the remakes are slowing down but I’m not expecting them to end. I mean Disney has been doing remakes since the 90s (101 Dalmatians, Parent Trap, Freaky Friday) as it's live action studio has never been able to be counted on for consistent hits at least not til they ramped up the remakes. Probably why the pirates franchise is getting rebooted even after having ran so long.

 

[Filmfreak]

I like some of these remakes. Of the ones you haven’t seen Cindy and TLM should be seen next. Cindy is near perfect and TLM has some issues but I think its take on the love story is better than the original.

As for soulless cash grabs it’s whatever, perhaps those people complaining should put their energy into actually seeing original films. Last month alone I was just in Monkey Man, Challengers, Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, and Abagail. All of those are “original” and had good critics ratings yet there were lots of seats unfilled and they didn’t do that great at the box office, so people keep saying give us original stuff but don’t show up then wonder why studios put out more of the same. Since 2021 Disney itself released original films Raya, Encanto, Strange World, and Wish and yet none of those films did well at the box office.

I’m sure the remakes are slowing down but I’m not expecting them to end. I mean Disney has been doing remakes since the 90s (101 Dalmatians, Parent Trap, Freaky Friday) as it's live action studio has never been able to be counted on for consistent hits at least not til they ramped up the remakes. Probably why the pirates franchise is getting rebooted even after having ran so long.

1. I put a lot of energy into supporting cinemas and original ideas very often, and it may surprise you but I still watch and love certain pre-established franchises in many cases. But they're examples that show even the slightest hint of creativity. And by some miracle I somehow still manage to have energy left to express my disdain on projects such as this, that don't. If you are looking forward to this film I'm genuinely happy for you. But I don't see how seeing a negative attitude towards these types of movies in general, should affect your positivity in any way.

2. It's the old supply and demand argument. Supply stems from demand, but again, demand also stems from supply. Sudio executives give people what they think they want but also people learn to expect certain things from those executives after some time. If studios took risks more often, people would find other things to like as well. Like it had been the case for decades in Hollywood, before the reboot frenzy started to occur 20 years ago. There were always adaptations and remakes of certain things but never to this extent.

3. You seem to purposely leave out numerous original movies that did great last year, or at the very least films that don't belong in a cinematic franchise. None of the top 3 did. And even more importantly you don't seem to mention dozens of box office bombs that occurred in established franchises and characters. Six out of seven superhero films bombed like crazy, Transformers, Fast 10, Indiana Jones, movies that used to break records, they all lost a ton of money. You know what else lost money? The Little Mermaid. I myself said it had a great run in the US, but elsewhere people just didn' seem to care at all. It wasn't the first and it surely won't be the last of this bunch. Also you have to understand that the reason Disney animated films are flopping since the pandemic is largely because Chapek tought family audiences to wait until their films hit Disney+. That's a big reason why most Disney and Pixar animation films are losing money compared to other studios like Dreamworks and Illumination where their movies have been perfoming spectacularly well.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Just because kids enjoyed one movie for generations doesn't mean that your movie isn't a soulless cashgrab.

 

[CB Fan]

1. I put a lot of energy into supporting cinemas and original ideas very often, and it may surprise you but I still watch and love certain pre-established franchises in many cases. But they're examples that show even the slightest hint of creativity. And by some miracle I somehow still manage to have energy left to express my disdain on projects such as this, that don't. If you are looking forward to this film I'm genuinely happy for you. But I don't see how seeing a negative attitude towards these types of movies in general, should affect your positivity in any way.

2. It's the old supply and demand argument. Supply stems from demand, but again, demand also stems from supply. Sudio executives give people what they think they want but also people learn to expect certain things from those executives after some time. If studios took risks more often, people would find other things to like as well. Like it had been the case for decades in Hollywood, before the reboot frenzy started to occur 20 years ago. There were always adaptations and remakes of certain things but never to this extent.

3. You seem to purposely leave out numerous original movies that did great last year, or at the very least films that don't belong in a cinematic franchise. None of the top 3 did. And even more importantly you don't seem to mention dozens of box office bombs that occurred in established franchises and characters. Six out of seven superhero films bombed like crazy, Transformers, Fast 10, Indiana Jones, movies that used to break records, they all lost a ton of money. You know what else lost money? The Little Mermaid. I myself said it had a great run in the US, but elsewhere people just didn' seem to care at all. It wasn't the first and it surely won't be the last of this bunch. Also you have to understand that the reason Disney animated films are flopping since the pandemic is largely because Chapek tought family audiences to wait until their films hit Disney+. That's a big reason why most Disney and Pixar animation films are losing money compared to other studios like Dreamworks and Illumination where their movies have been perfoming spectacularly well.

My comment wasn’t a dig at you but I can see how you thought it was. I’ve just seen comments on YouTube of people talking about the lack of original content all the time (usually under Disney remake or sequel trailers) yet when original content is released in theaters the box office isn’t adding up with all the people who keep complaining. More people need to put their money where their mouth is.

Last year had Barbie and Mario two movies based off huge franchises and Oppenheimer, are those first two really original movies? Look at the rest of the top ten, filled with sequels, remake, prequel. As for the popularity of the remakes I don’t think TLM shows people are over remakes for reasons already discussed (packed summer, racism).

As for this film idk how it will end up but I think it’s bold to tell a director “hey that film you dedicated years to is a soulless cash grab” before I’ve even seen it.

 

[Filmfreak]

My comment wasn’t a dig at you but I can see how you thought it was. I’ve just seen comments on YouTube of people talking about the lack of original content all the time (usually under Disney remake or sequel trailers) yet when original content is released in theaters the box office isn’t adding up with all the people who keep complaining. More people need to put their money where their mouth is.

Fair enough.

Last year had Barbie and Mario two movies based off huge franchises and Oppenheimer, are those first two really original movies? Look at the rest of the top ten, filled with sequels, remake, prequel. As for the popularity of the remakes I don’t think TLM shows people are over remakes for reasons already discussed (packed summer, racism).

Like I said, the first three might not be exactly original, but they certainly are not being based on preexisting movie franchises. They're not sequels, prequels, spin-offs, reboots or parts of a larger cinematic universe of any short. And I don't think it's coincidental. People want familiarity but they also like fresh takes. Which is far from what these Disney live action films based on animated ones are. Also, yes, the rest of the top 10 is filled with sequels but most of these movies also made significantly less than their previous entries or even lost money and that also says something.

As for this film idk how it will end up but I think it’s bold to tell a director “hey that film you dedicated years to is a soulless cash grab” before I’ve even seen it.

I don't know, I feel pretty comfortable calling it that even without seeing it, since almost all of these films are exactly that. I'm open to be proven wrong but for know, due to precedent, I take the much more common scenario as the most likely one. And the film not being a direct adaptation/remake somehow feels like an even bigger cash grab to me. They literally decided to go to an even safer route with these and do a prequel to their most successful live action remake just because it made 1.7 billion and they're running out of beloved animation flicks.

 

[Spider-Fan]

My comment wasn’t a dig at you but I can see how you thought it was. I’ve just seen comments on YouTube of people talking about the lack of original content all the time (usually under Disney remake or sequel trailers) yet when original content is released in theaters the box office isn’t adding up with all the people who keep complaining. More people need to put their money where their mouth is.

Last year had Barbie and Mario two movies based off huge franchises and Oppenheimer, are those first two really original movies? Look at the rest of the top ten, filled with sequels, remake, prequel. As for the popularity of the remakes I don’t think TLM shows people are over remakes for reasons already discussed (packed summer, racism).

As for this film idk how it will end up but I think it’s bold to tell a director “hey that film you dedicated years to is a soulless cash grab” before I’ve even seen it.

I dont think it's bold at all. I saw the previous attempt at The Lion King. Which was a soulless cash grab and this is a sequel. If anything, I need it to be proved that this ISN'T the same thing.

 

[Albright]

haters gonna hate…