MovieChat Forums > The Lion King (1994) Discussion > The Lion King 1994 vs. 2019: A side-by-s...

The Lion King 1994 vs. 2019: A side-by-side, shot-for-shot comparison


https://youtu.be/3twSBILH7ug

reply

Yeah...why remake it if you're just going to make the exact same movie all over again?

Besides $$$$$$$$$$.

reply

It is not the same exact movie 100% but it is almost a frame by frame redo; only much worse in almost every way. The voice acting was worse, the singing was worse, the flow was worse, the CGI and lack of facial expressions on the characters was uncanny ASF; there was not enough 'action' sequences to justify redoing it, they could have actually reused the audio from the original and just placed CGI over the top of the animation if they wanted to do something like that, they ruined "Be Prepared", I could go on but it was just awful.

I really hate this disney era of live action remakes... and Disney Star Wars.

reply

*thumbs up*

reply

I was open to the live-action remake trend until it was shown how bad the movies ended up being. Now I want it to stop.

Like with Beauty and the Beast, Disney missed a very promising opportunity with The Lion King (and Maleficent as well, even more blatantly). Beauty and the Beast could have been the Broadway musical brought to the screen, with a few tweaks here and there. I mean come on, who DIDN'T want to see Home or If I Can't Love Her performed onscreen? Not only did they not go that route, but it seemed they went out of their way to NOT understand what made the original so great and beloved. In "fixing the problems" that weren't problems, they ended up making more problems.

The Lion King...was so pointless. Why do this at all? What you listed was spot on. In Beauty and the Beast, the changes were terrible. But the fact that there's hardly any changes in The Lion King remake is just as detrimental, and like Beauty and the Beast I wanted them to make it like the Broadway version. Casting Beyoncé as Nala and not having her sing Shadowland is a CRIME.

They could have used this opportunity to answer more questions we had about The Lion King universe, but they didn't. I would have liked to see more of Scar's reign from the point of view of the lionesses (we got a little bit of that, but it wasn't enough). I would have liked to see more of what life was like in the Pride Lands - get to know the lionesses a little more and see if there were more cubs besides Simba and Nala. Have Nala's father be at least mentioned in passing, even if he's not a character in the movie, at least so we know Simba and Nala are not brother and sister.

reply

I have been wary of remakes in general for years; but when they were 'remaking' the disney classics i was semi okay with the idea; some of the animation does look dated. But yes, then when they were actually made they were so much worse then I even dreaded they might be.

Yes if you are going to remake it and recast the voice actors' you might as well as make it unique. They could not do this with Beauty and the beast becaseu there was real actors. But Lion King they could have easily just reused the old (and much better) audio (voice actors and songs) and just put a new 'live action like' CGI video over the top. There is not enough different material to even justify a new caste; they speak almost the same lines (only slightly worse).

Yes they had a chance to do something more and do more songs and utilize the singing talent they had, instead we got things like an almost 5 minute montage of a literal piece of shit getting rolled around. Talk about an ironic symbol of the quality of the film we were watching.

reply

I'm okay with using a new cast - I believe in seeing strengths and weaknesses in different portrayals of a character, that's one of the reasons I love theater. My opinion on this may be an unpopular view because James Earl Jones is so beloved as Mufasa, and with good reason, but maybe he shouldn't have been recast. His vocal performance was nowhere near as solid, lively, emotional, or meaningful as it was the first time around. It's not his fault - he was and is approaching his 90's, and it wasn't a terrible performance. It was just more lackluster, which added to my list of reasons as to why this remake falls incredibly short.

I forgot to address "Be Prepared" in one of your previous posts. I had read that they were going to cut the song completely at first, and obviously that received a lot of backlash. Not only is "Be Prepared" a great villain song, but it is so ESSENTIAL to the story. Only a moron would think it's a great idea, which sadly a lot of people in Hollywood are. But I think that keeping a tiny bit of the song in a half-assed attempt to appease the fans made it worse.

reply

I love James Earl Jones, but I fully agree he either should have been recast or the should have just used the archive audio for at least him. He sad to say, just sounded very old and wore out. And that is NOT the symbol of power and authority Mufasa is supposed to be.

What they did with "Be Prepared" is almost a crime. I was legitimately anger after that (IDK what was a it a beat bop set?, not even a song). It sound even worse when you say they were going to cut it completely. What the hell where they thinking; that is arguably the most important bit of character building for Scar; without it he is just a standard power driven bad guy.

reply

And you wonder why I refused to watch it? It looked like a bad CGI cut-and-paste of the first film, and I was right to think so!

reply

I wish I did the same as you. It's hard to unsee especially if you loved the original.

reply