Thoughts on The Lion King
-
cornnetto — 9 years ago(September 29, 2016 12:27 PM)
Jungle Book had more than a few soundstage sets for the young actor to perform on and then the CGI characters and extended CGI backgrounds were dropped in.
I wonder if they would use the same formula here, incorporate actual live action set/plate photography even though they will have NO live action performers there
Did they ? I had the impression the way they talked about it it that it was almost 100% CGI except element really close to the actor (or touching it, a bit of mud some tree), but it sound way too much work to not start with some plate.
The director on twitter:
@MonkeyBoy1138 How many of the locations were real, and how many are cgi? Theyre looking pretty authentic.
Jon Favreau:
None are real. All are CGI.
The whole movie was shot in downtown LA. Mowgli floating down the river on Baloos belly singing was difficult to recreate with real physics. Lots of R&D
I wonder if he just mean all bluescreen and not all CGI, they still used some real photography for those background and made composition ? -
Chrispy_G — 9 years ago(October 01, 2016 08:30 AM)
Well, I just meant that to some degree they did have sets that the child actor was interacting with and present on.
But without any human actors, this could essentially be a 100% "animated" film, and I'm curious if they will consider incorporating ANY "live action"(sets, plates, whichever) into the filmbecause in theory it would allow them to spend more time/money/attention on the CGI characters.
Self improvement is a full-time job -
saxondale7 — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 04:23 AM)
I think Trevor raised a great point before, however, about the fact that a human character anchored The Jungle Book, gave the animals something of an excuse to talk, and I do think it made the film look more impressive, as you had a real person interacting with an entirely CGI world.
No humans puts me in mind of something like Dinosaur, especially if Disney attempt to go for the photo-realistic route, where talking lions might look silly.
Shut it, Love Actually! Do you want me to hole punch your face? -
TrevorAclea — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 05:14 PM)
On one level it makes sense with the growth in China, though there have already been several films and TV series about her - with 2009's Hua Mulan being heavily promoted by the Chinese government as rescuing a national heroine from Disneyfication - so the Disney approach may not be as welcome in China as they think.
"Security - release the badgers." -
dalbrech — 9 years ago(October 05, 2016 12:09 PM)
Western studios are certainly trying to appeal to the Chinese Market, with mixed results. Independence Day:Resurgance made a big effort for the Chinese Market (casting one of China's most popular pop singers in a major role,giving China a big part of the storyline)but it still underperformed. Frankly, "The Martian" was a lot smarter in appealing to the Chinese market;it did so without looking like it was panderingwhich can backfire.
-
Wartle — 9 years ago(September 29, 2016 03:23 PM)
It sounds stupidbut it'll probably be a big hit. I was skeptical about Jungle Book but apparently my finger is nowhere near the pulse of the average audience because crowds ate that movie up. On top of that even Tarzan did vastly better business than anybody gave it a chance of doing before it was released. I'm really not sure how you could turn a movie with an all-animal cast into a live action filmbut if there's a way to do it I can see it doing well at the boxoffice.
-
-
Evangelion217 — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 02:09 PM)
Personally, I didn't love "The Jungle Book." But people seem to really enjoy Jon's approach with that film and families really enjoyed it. So if he can have even half of that success with "The Lion King", then this film could still make 900 million dollars worldwide. And if it's a better film, then a billion dollars is not out of the question.
Last Films seen:
Fantastic Four(2015)- 5/10
Sully(2016)- 8/10
Don't Breath(2016)- 9/10