Despite making over $1.8 billion at the box office, the 2019 Lion King remake was not fully appreciated by all audiences. Many critics took aim at the lack of facial expressions. In response to the criticism artist Nikolay Mochkin and Instagram user @jonty_pressinger worked together to redo parts of the movie with deepfake style technology to give the characters more expressive range.
The result has been hailed by some as a success with people asking the duo to remake the entire movie in this style. Others have claimed the 2019 version was supposed to be live action and more realistic; that this attempt to add expression missed the point.
Yes, the original release of "The Lion King" was 25 years ago.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Lion King: Remake gets ‘DeepFake’ Makeover
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 16 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 12 2019, @05:20AM (1 child)
Deep fake deep fake, don't forget about deep fakes! There are obviously some videos on the way that will need to be dismissed as deep fakes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 12 2019, @05:32AM
But, did they recast TMB as Simba? Or Pumba? I think TMB, if he were not a bird, would be a warthog.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday August 12 2019, @06:46AM (2 children)
Context: Disney movie, based on a children story using anthropomorphized animals as characters. And they want it closer to "live action and realistic"!
Allow me to finish my laughing and point you that, realistically, the lion species are not kings (and the African fauna doesn't follow a "kingdom" social organization) and the most common "live action" of a male lion directed to its progeny is to eat them (unless deterred by their mother, which may even kill the male [theguardian.com]).
But, yeah, condition the populace to the idea of "the role of an authority - of a king - is immutable and it's their God given right; if temporary lost, the usurpers are heinous, and the happy ending is the original authority being restored. Maybe the sheeple will swallow it and endure the gig economy a while longer and fight between themselves over some virtual crumbles we threw in [news.com.au]"
(see also The men who made us spend [theguardian.com])
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Monday August 12 2019, @08:56AM
If only it were easier to cast lions and hyenas they could have made it like the Incredible Journey [disney.com]. (wasn't expecting a movie from 1963 to have an official web page)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 12 2019, @08:14PM
Hamlet with animals, by Disney. yawn.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 12 2019, @08:03AM (4 children)
The problem with the movie is not that it looks too real, but faces needed some "eyebrows" or darkened hair around the top of the eyes. They say the gateway to the soul is the eyes. Just some simple eyebrows or facial movement around the eyes to add to their expression would do wonders. What facial features they do have are flattened by the mute color palette, which makes both distinguishing facial expressions and getting the mood of the scene from the background harder. Plus, half the scenes seem to take place in shadow or dark (probably to make rendering easier or flaws less noticeable), so even if the above were there, they would be hard to pick up on. Plus, there is a not-quite-right feeling to some of the movements, at least for me, that makes the lack of expression even worse because now you are distracted by other things too.
Disney should have left this out to pasture when they got the sickly thing back from the render farm.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 12 2019, @08:18AM (3 children)
This movie compared to the original could be the best example of what is lost when you rigidly adhere to photorealism. Obviously, you will get expressionless characters when you model them completely after real animals. Total cash grab by Disney and they will keep pumping these out unless they start bombing at the box office. And this one isn't. [cinemablend.com] The foreign box office gross is helping to prop up mediocre movies like this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 12 2019, @12:32PM
Well, what do you expect from an entire generation that grew up with crappy videogame cgi and have never known any better.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Monday August 12 2019, @01:58PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 12 2019, @05:58PM
No, just do an image search for "happy lion" or "sad lion" or "angry lion." You can see plenty of examples of them showing emotion that we would recognize as such. In addition, a lot of that comes from small touches and the eye shape. It isn't the photorealism providing too much detail that is the problem, it is the bad animation that lacks detail that is the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 12 2019, @02:31PM
They took an original work of composition and decided to alter that copy? Presuming they did not have the blessing of Dis-powers-that-ney, that is what copyright law is for. Now scream about how unfair that might be....
Waiting for the cease-and-desist in 5... 4.... 3..... 2......
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday August 12 2019, @07:47PM (1 child)
Not as good as the cartoon. My son was bored (if I'd been tired I'd have fallen asleep) and little ones in the theatre cried and parents had to leave.
Wait for torrent.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 12 2019, @08:18PM
That too. The original might have been a bit too tight at just under 90 minutes, but feels even shorter with the songs and flashy visuals. However, this one is two hours and it feels like longer too because it is padded and dull with the drab visuals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 12 2019, @11:20PM (2 children)
I'm a bit surprised at all the hate this movie is getting here. Admittedly it may be a lackluster film, but based on the previews, it looks like a marvel of technology.
Those lions really look like lions, interacting with warhogs, birds, and other wildlife. If this had been put out as an R&D project from a university, I'm sure there'd be a lot of hype, "OMG, look at that!" and "can you believe how far our computer rendering has gone?"
This is meant to be a technology (and other) forum... so why aren't people excited and scared for the state of technology?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @04:44AM
The difference is that this costs $15 per person to view with the promise to be an entertaining and enrapturing experience, not a groundbreaking technology showcase. A tech demo is uploaded for free to YouTube or some other host, with the promise to be a groundbreaking technology showcase, not an entertainment or enrapturing experience.
Plus, this is a remake. No surprise that people who like the critically-acclaimed original will complain when your copy is crap. Same way they would when they see a copy of the Mona Lisa fingerpainted with leftover watercolors, especially if they have to pay to see it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @10:16AM
It's like going to see the recent live action remake of Aladdin expecting the vibe pizzazz and pop of the original only to find yourself stuck in the latest attempt at mobile female empowerment in cinematography.