|
Post by ck100 on Apr 29, 2024 13:15:52 GMT
The prequel to the 2019 live-action CGI-heavy remake of "The Lion King".
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Apr 29, 2024 16:59:18 GMT
Disney should be careful. Don't forget what happened the last time Disney made and released an expensive, live-action, CGI-heavy follow-up to an expensive, live-action, CGI-heavy, billion dollar-grossing movie 5-6 years after that previous movie.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Apr 30, 2024 20:57:26 GMT
If I understand correctly from the trailer, Mufasa wasn't born into royalty and had to build his kingdom from the ground up? It doesn't match with the context of the original animated film although these new films have their own continuity. Also, I'm glad the series is finally acknowledging white lions.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 30, 2024 21:24:43 GMT
If I understand correctly from the trailer, Mufasa wasn't born into royalty and had to build his kingdom from the ground up? It doesn't match with the context of the original animated film although these new films have their own continuity. Also, I'm glad the series is finally acknowledging white lions. Hey, what's whiter than Matthew Broderick? And yeah, the plot looks pretty stupid. So Mufasa is basically Aegon the Conqueror? Oookay. Since he's the one making up the rules, perhaps he could have avoided a coup/uprising by his brother and his army of outcasted ethnic minorities. Where is Scar, anyway? If I'm watching a Mufasa movie, more of their brotherly relationship is probably the one thing I'd be interested in. I wonder if casting her daughter was collateral to get Beyonce back (as Nala... in a kid Mufasa prequel...)
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Apr 30, 2024 22:54:58 GMT
If I understand correctly from the trailer, Mufasa wasn't born into royalty and had to build his kingdom from the ground up? It doesn't match with the context of the original animated film although these new films have their own continuity. Also, I'm glad the series is finally acknowledging white lions. Hey, what's whiter than Matthew Broderick? And yeah, the plot looks pretty stupid. So Mufasa is basically Aegon the Conqueror? Oookay. Since he's the one making up the rules, perhaps he could have avoided a coup/uprising by his brother and his army of outcasted ethnic minorities. Where is Scar, anyway? If I'm watching a Mufasa movie, more of their brotherly relationship is probably the one thing I'd be interested in. I wonder if casting her daughter was collateral to get Beyonce back (as Nala... in a kid Mufasa prequel...) Scar's in the film and they'll explain his backstory in more detail, but as it turns out, Mufasa and Scar do not share the same parents in this film.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 1, 2024 0:42:36 GMT
Hey, what's whiter than Matthew Broderick? And yeah, the plot looks pretty stupid. So Mufasa is basically Aegon the Conqueror? Oookay. Since he's the one making up the rules, perhaps he could have avoided a coup/uprising by his brother and his army of outcasted ethnic minorities. Where is Scar, anyway? If I'm watching a Mufasa movie, more of their brotherly relationship is probably the one thing I'd be interested in. I wonder if casting her daughter was collateral to get Beyonce back (as Nala... in a kid Mufasa prequel...) Scar's in the film and they'll explain his backstory in more detail, but as it turns out, Mufasa and Scar do not share the same parents in this film. I don't see anyone credited as him anywhere on imdb or wiki. And dear God, that's stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on May 1, 2024 21:07:32 GMT
Scar's in the film and they'll explain his backstory in more detail, but as it turns out, Mufasa and Scar do not share the same parents in this film. I don't see anyone credited as him anywhere on imdb or wiki. And dear God, that's stupid. Scar's real name (at least in this film) is Taka. And yes, it's stupid. The point of Mufasa and Scar being brothers was to show a darkness within the royal family. I swear the people producing this film do not understand The Lion King at all.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 1, 2024 21:16:17 GMT
The point of Mufasa and Scar being brothers was to show a darkness within the royal family. I swear the people producing this film do not understand The Lion King at all. I think they do because the original was intended as politically progressive for its day since the bad lion is voiced by a white guy with a gayish sounding British accent. The idea that the sickly deformed brother is bad-common place in stories going back a long time-that now sounds Fascist by today's Disney standards. The Lion King must come from the downtrodden and the outside for two reasons---one is to avoid making it seem that merit is biologically assigned from birth and make any case that sounds like a male patriarchal destiny, and two, to imply that the immigrant can become leader of a different tribe.
From their perspective, it is progressive because all they have--is change--transformation. Stability is contrary to progressive ideology. There's always something to cast down or replace.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on May 1, 2024 21:29:43 GMT
The point of Mufasa and Scar being brothers was to show a darkness within the royal family. I swear the people producing this film do not understand The Lion King at all. I think they do because the original was intended as politically progressive for its day since the bad lion is voiced by a white guy with a gayish sounding British accent. The idea that the sickly deformed brother is bad-common place in stories going back a long time-that now sounds Fascist by today's Disney standards. The Lion King must come from the downtrodden and the outside for two reasons---one is to avoid making it seem that merit is biologically assigned from birth and make any case that sounds like a male patriarchal destiny, and two, to imply that the immigrant can become leader of a different tribe.
From their perspective, it is progressive because all they have--is change--transformation. Stability is contrary to progressive ideology. There's always something to cast down or replace.
There's nothing progressive about having a British-accented villain versus an American cast. The Star Wars series already did this, with Imperial officers portrayed by white British actors while the Rebel Alliance is diverse with American actors and various aliens. However, I can see where they are going with this storyline. Supposedly, Scar's parents see Mufasa (an outcast) as a more qualified leader of the pride over their own son, who is born royal. The moral of the story, I'm assuming, is your personal value is not determined by your heritage. That's a good message, but you don't need to retcon the backstories of the established characters in order to tell it.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 1, 2024 22:51:39 GMT
There's nothing progressive about having a British-accented villain versus an American cast. In the original it's a black-voiced hero though. So the bad lion is a white voice, and the good lion is black-voiced. Disney's management cared about stuff like that in the 1990s.
The idea of a kingdom being destroyed by internal corruption--that's Hamlet. But likely they will emphasize a multicultural solution.
And, incidentally, the Lion King was a remake of the Japanese animation--which is different in storyline--it wasn't about internal corruption but the threat posed by the outsiders (meaning humans).
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on May 2, 2024 2:26:07 GMT
There's nothing progressive about having a British-accented villain versus an American cast. In the original it's a black-voiced hero though. So the bad lion is a white voice, and the good lion is black-voiced. Disney's management cared about stuff like that in the 1990s.
The idea of a kingdom being destroyed by internal corruption--that's Hamlet. But likely they will emphasize a multicultural solution.
And, incidentally, the Lion King was a remake of the Japanese animation--which is different in storyline--it wasn't about internal corruption but the threat posed by the outsiders (meaning humans).
Show me some commentary from the filmmakers that indicated they chose the voice talent based on race. On the LaserDisc, the directors stated they cast James Earl Jones because his voice sounds like a lion. Casting Jeremy Irons, I believe, was a throwback to having a well-trained Shakespearean actor in the cast because the film was lifted from Hamlet. And I don't believe TLK was a remake or plagiarized Jungle Emperor Leo (or Kimba the White Lion). The similarities are undeniable, but as you stated, the storylines are different. TLK was intended to be mythical and epic, while Jungle Emperor Leo was intended to tell a story of humans and animals getting along.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 2, 2024 6:04:19 GMT
Show me some commentary from the filmmakers that indicated they chose the voice talent based on race. Sure--and while we are on the hunt for it--we will find the paper trail that proves Disney wasn't aware that the director they hired for Powder was a convicted child molester.
|
|