Maximilian Schaar
Dr. Vrooman
Media and Pop Culture
The Lion King
The evolution of movie making since the 1990’s has evolved considerably; clear evidence of this change is marked by movies such as Disney’s remake of “The Lion King” by John Favreau. The kind of impact a “mega-hit” movie brings to the theater is massive and not only brings in a new audience but also brings back the first generation of kids who grew up with the 1994 original film. Disney’s new movie keeps many of the already existing plot but adds subtle changes that enhance the film, especially when using comical actors such as Seth Rogan which stars as the voice of Pumbaa.
While the film has largely remained the same, the most notable characteristic that makes the new film stand out is the use of photorealistic CGI technology which helps immerse the audience into the film. The use of what Disney likes to call “life-like” film is completely revolutionizing the film industry as we speak. There is no need for cameras and performance capturing devices because the film is largely produced with technology in a 1:1 interaction between producers and computers. With this being said it is no surprise that the movie is smashing the box-office.
When analyzing the difference between the original and remake the first point of comparison is noted by Rafiki’s painting of Simba. In the original film Rafiki is seen painting a picture of the young cub while sitting on a tree. In the remake film, a group of glowing insects take part in the drawing of Simba which creates a sense that Simba’s role in the movie is part of a higher prophecy. 
Additionally, the occurrence of Rafiki is mystified by depicting the character as more reserved and spiritual. This is contrasted by the original film because the character is seen as more verbal and not as reserved. Later on, as time passes, we see that Simba is no longer a young cub but a full-grown lion. Simba’s absence from the Kingdom is shifted as a small piece of Simba’s hair sets drift into the wind. The piece of hair embarks on an interesting journey, from being digested by a giraffe and being rolled up by a dung beetle the hair miraculously makes its way to Rafiki. This amazes Rafiki because it signifies that Simba is alive. In the original film the fur floats in the wind and gets picked up by Rafiki. However, the adventure of such a minute detail is not as exaggerated as seen as depicted in the remake.
The difference in the animation styles and Disney's choice to call the new Lion King live acton is a big deal. I think it would be good to find and article or some data that would explain why Disney needs the film to be called live action and what the monetary benefits of that are. Did producers toss around ideas of any other styles of animation? Also it would be good to expand and find more moments where minute details were changed how they add to the depth of the story.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the information is good, and you have a good number of things that could be used in creating an argument. For example, maybe you could argue how animation is going out of style for the most part, and that people are beginning to have this intense interest in CGI and life-like 'animation." Maybe you could try and argue how animation from the first Lion King adds more character and emotion than that of CGI, and that, as a result, animation can capture more emotion than CGI can.
ReplyDelete