4 ms·

I think most animators still understand that, and they know how to do animation properly (make it expressive, use brighter color palettes, etc), but I'm guessin

I think most animators still understand that, and they know how to do animation properly (make it expressive, use brighter color palettes, etc), but I'm guessing that a lot of the producers and people involved in this particular film just wanted to make something "cool". The entire thing is basically a vehicle for Disney to show off their fancy rendering engine.

falcor84 7y ago
I couldn't for the life of me understand why they even decided on this project. With films like Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin they recreated the animated film as a live-action one, which makes sense to me as a worthwhile endeavor, regardless of the result. But here they've just converted one animation style to another, which I don't understand the creative need for, so I assume it's just a money grab.
- enonevets 7y ago
  With every Pixar film, the team learns something new or how to do something better. This has been said in multiple interviews with newer Pixar films that come out compared to the old ones. Aside from the superb storytelling and all that, it makes the team push for new breakthrough in animation. I can see Lion King serving as a real world project for Disney animators in the same way, and a way to get paid to learn and push the fold in realistic animation. Not saying that's the reason behind it as I'm sure remaking a bunch of these movies was likely planned already but if you can level up your team, learn something new in the process, and get paid for doing it, why not.
- nabdab 7y ago
  They are trying to build up material to drive their eventual lobbying for extending IP rights to lifetime of creator plus 2000 years. They are just looking back through their portfolio going “what’s easy to remake somehow” and going with photorealistic remakes of all the animal movies was an easy one. Remember. Disney is a theme-park & toy company that does movies as commercials/branding. But the first two businesses are critically dependent on retaining all the IP rights for the movies in perpetuity.

falcor84 7y ago

I couldn't for the life of me understand why they even decided on this project. With films like Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin they recreated the animated film as a live-action one, which makes sense to me as a worthwhile endeavor, regardless of the result. But here they've just converted one animation style to another, which I don't understand the creative need for, so I assume it's just a money grab.

enonevets 7y ago
With every Pixar film, the team learns something new or how to do something better. This has been said in multiple interviews with newer Pixar films that come out compared to the old ones. Aside from the superb storytelling and all that, it makes the team push for new breakthrough in animation. I can see Lion King serving as a real world project for Disney animators in the same way, and a way to get paid to learn and push the fold in realistic animation. Not saying that's the reason behind it as I'm sure remaking a bunch of these movies was likely planned already but if you can level up your team, learn something new in the process, and get paid for doing it, why not.
nabdab 7y ago
They are trying to build up material to drive their eventual lobbying for extending IP rights to lifetime of creator plus 2000 years. They are just looking back through their portfolio going “what’s easy to remake somehow” and going with photorealistic remakes of all the animal movies was an easy one. Remember. Disney is a theme-park & toy company that does movies as commercials/branding. But the first two businesses are critically dependent on retaining all the IP rights for the movies in perpetuity.