|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 3, 2019 0:16:05 GMT
Criticizing it for being a retelling of Hamlet is odd in relation to the rest of the Disney Renaissance, which was of course comprised entirely of famous fairy takes and stories. Well the other movies are at least honest about it, unlike The Lion King which pretends that it's original. Does it really need to credit Hamlet? That is one of the most famous plays of all time. It isn't like it is a movie that is ripping off some obscure source and trying to pass it off as original material. There are many movies that are loosely based on other material that don't credit the source material. It has no effect on the quality of the movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Apr 3, 2019 0:18:54 GMT
Well the other movies are at least honest about it, unlike The Lion King which pretends that it's original.Does it really need to credit Hamlet? That is one of the most famous plays of all time. It isn't like it is a movie that is ripping off some obscure source and trying to pass it off as original material. There are many movies that are loosely based on other material that don't credit the source material. It has no effect on the quality of the movies. Don't pretend that if The Lion King credited Hamlet that you would feel any differently about the movie itself. Well it's kind of arrogant to assume you know exactly what I think but I digress. I guess part of it for me is that it receives so much credit for being some groundbreaking movie when its story is basically Hamlet with animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by HumanFundRecipient on Apr 3, 2019 0:20:23 GMT
When Disney released The Lion King from the vault last year, it was the first Blu Ray of an animated movie I purchased.
Everything that justifies its greatness has already been said.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 3, 2019 0:21:36 GMT
Does it really need to credit Hamlet? That is one of the most famous plays of all time. It isn't like it is a movie that is ripping off some obscure source and trying to pass it off as original material. There are many movies that are loosely based on other material that don't credit the source material. It has no effect on the quality of the movies. Don't pretend that if The Lion King credited Hamlet that you would feel any differently about the movie itself. but I digress. I guess part of it for me is that it receives so much credit for being some groundbreaking movie when its story is basically Hamlet with animals. Would you like the movie better if it credited Hamlet? I can't really see how it would. The movie is exactly the same whether it credits Hamlet or not. It doesn't get credited as groundbreaking for the story. It gets credited as groundbreaking for the directing - the animation, the voice-work, the songs and the score.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 3, 2019 0:28:45 GMT
References to it being an adaptation of Hamlet .... where ? How ? who ?
This ancient story seems to fit much more closely :
"The Lion King" is very similar to a story almost unknown to Western culture but one of the most beloved historical stories of the Niger Congo language family (western Africa). It is a story about one of their greatest kings - "Sundiata: An Epic of Old Mali". The main character Sundiata (which, directly translated, means "the lion king") is a young prince banished from his homeland by his family after his father dies. The story tracks his overcoming of emotional and physical ailments to later return to his kingdom and battle the evil sorcerer king who has overtaken it in his absence. This is a true story with some magical elements added and is still told by griots (history-keepers for upper-class families, aka Rafiki in the film).
and another source:
Osirian family myths of Ancient Egyptian mythology. In the Osirian myths, the king (Mufasa/Osiris) is killed by his jealous brother (Scar/Seth) and the rightful heir (Simba/Horus) is sent into exile as a boy. The murdered king visits and mentors his son in ghostly visits and when the heir comes of age, he returns to exact revenge on his father's murderer.
but Hamlet ? Other than brothers and the son of one.
The original story was that they were not even brothers and that's why the two adult lions don't look a bit alike.
"In early drafts, Scar was a rogue lion with no relation to Mufasa. Eventually, however, the story writers thought relating him to Mufasa would be more interesting, a threat within. This is why Scar and Mufasa differ so much; they weren't originally designed to be related. "
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Apr 3, 2019 0:32:14 GMT
Well it's kind of arrogant to assume you know exactly what I think but I digress. I guess part of it for me is that it receives so much credit for being some groundbreaking movie when its story is basically Hamlet with animals. Would you like the movie better if it credited Hamlet? I can't really see how it would. The movie is exactly the same whether it credits Hamlet or not. It doesn't get credited as groundbreaking for the story. It gets credited as groundbreaking for the directing - the animation, the voice-work, the songs and the score. No I guess I wouldn't like it better if officially credited Hamlet, but the fawning over it would be less annoying to me. Hey I'm only human, I'm just always gonna have certain ways of looking at things, logical or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 3, 2019 1:13:39 GMT
References to it being an adaptation of Hamlet .... where ? How ? who ? This ancient story seems to fit much more closely : "The Lion King" is very similar to a story almost unknown to Western culture but one of the most beloved historical stories of the Niger Congo language family (western Africa). It is a story about one of their greatest kings - "Sundiata: An Epic of Old Mali". The main character Sundiata (which, directly translated, means "the lion king") is a young prince banished from his homeland by his family after his father dies. The story tracks his overcoming of emotional and physical ailments to later return to his kingdom and battle the evil sorcerer king who has overtaken it in his absence. This is a true story with some magical elements added and is still told by griots (history-keepers for upper-class families, aka Rafiki in the film). and another source: Osirian family myths of Ancient Egyptian mythology. In the Osirian myths, the king (Mufasa/Osiris) is killed by his jealous brother (Scar/Seth) and the rightful heir (Simba/Horus) is sent into exile as a boy. The murdered king visits and mentors his son in ghostly visits and when the heir comes of age, he returns to exact revenge on his father's murderer.
but Hamlet ? Other than brothers and the son of one. The original story was that they were not even brothers and that's why the two adult lions don't look a bit alike. "In early drafts, Scar was a rogue lion with no relation to Mufasa. Eventually, however, the story writers thought relating him to Mufasa would be more interesting, a threat within. This is why Scar and Mufasa differ so much; they weren't originally designed to be related. " It gets credited as being inspired by Hamlet quite a bit. You could Google it right now and you would see. So much so that it has sites debunking that it is inspired by Hamlet. Whether or not is is THAT similar has very little to do with it. When I think of a brother killing his brother in order to be the king and then the son coming back for revenge makes me think of Hamlet. Yes, there are other similar stories but they aren't as recognizable to most people, including me. Also, Timone and Pumba are kind of referencing Rosancrantz and Guildenstern are they not? Then there is the "ghost" of his father kind of thing going on in The Lion King too.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 3, 2019 1:38:50 GMT
moviemouth have seen this Lion King = Hamlet thing often and have always wondered because I just don't see it .... too tenuous a connection... especially when reading about all the various and sundry changes they made to the story as originally planned and what changes were made . IF it was suppose do to be an animal version of Hamlet, there would be no questioning of it . it would be just that ! West Side Story = Romeo and Juliet. yes Lion King = Hamlet ….not so much, (imo anyway) I have not seen the movie enough to talk about it in detail. I didn't like it the first time and gave it one more chance. I still didn't care for it as mentioned earlier. so 
|
|
|
|
Post by gw on Apr 3, 2019 1:44:31 GMT
I think it's overrated. The lion designs, like the now infamous John Kricafalusi pointed out, are retreads of old Disney large cats based on TS Sullivant. Simba's personality changes completely from weak kid to cool hippy and suddenly on a dime he's able to become a worthy king like his dad despite having spent years eating bugs and avoiding other large animals. Then there's the inconsistent physics where Simba gets squashed by a heap of animals but Mumbasa gets killed by being trampled on. And of course, the bad guys are portrayed as morons because they can't come up with a real moral reason that lions should be on the top of the food chain. And speaking of the food chain, why are all these animals who might be killed by the lions revering the birth of their young in the first place? Don't they realize that the lionesses are going to hunt one of them down for dinner? I don't think that the whole nature as a kingdom idea works when you gloss over the dark side of the predator prey relationship. And the film has so many major similarities to Kimba The White Lion that it's clearly based on it heavily.
There are some good aspects too. The opening segment is one of the most powerful in animation history. Some of the other songs are good. I liked the Mandrill character even though I didn't care for most of the main cast. I'd give the movie on the whole a 5 out of 10. I know lots of people just love Disney but in my opinion they're a studio that is a casualty of capitalism. They are simply too sappy and I can't relate much to their stories or their characters. I love Fantasia, really like Snow White, and used to really like Fantasia 2000. But I never rated any of their other feature films anything above a 6 out of 10. I'm boycotting them now for their delivery room marketing and their greed in buying up every company they can, but even without that I would still consider them a studio that's economically successful but creatively mediocre.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 3, 2019 1:52:44 GMT
moviemouth have seen this Lion King = Hamlet thing often and have always wondered because I just don't see it .... too tenuous a connection... especially when reading about all the various and sundry changes they made to the story as originally planned and what changes were made . IF it was suppose do to be an animal version of Hamlet, there would be no questioning of it . it would be just that ! West Side Story = Romeo and Juliet. yes Lion King = Hamlet ….not so much, (imo anyway) I have not seen the movie enough to talk about it in detail. I didn't like it the first time and gave it one more chance. I still didn't care for it as mentioned earlier. so The thing is that most people don't know the changes that were made during production and most people aren't accusing it of being a direct adaptation of Hamlet, because it obviously isn't. To the average person The Lion King appears loosely inspired by Hamlet.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 3, 2019 2:01:16 GMT
moviemouth But then again... the "average person"* pretty much knows or cares squat about what inspired The Lion King or any other movie. The "average person" just watches movies and either likes them or doesn't. *average person being someone who isn't "into" movies and has never heard of IMDb or IMDB-V2 and doesn't get into discussions such as this one … 
Not to mention that many of those "average persons" would not know Hamlet if he came and sat down beside them, much less would they know any possible similarities in theme between the play and the Lion King.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 3, 2019 2:03:43 GMT
And speaking of the food chain, why are all these animals who might be killed by the lions revering the birth of their young in the first place? Don't they realize that the lionesses are going to hunt one of them down for dinner? I don't think that the whole nature as a kingdom idea works when you gloss over the dark side of the predator prey relationship. And the film has so many major similarities to Kimba The White Lion that it's clearly based on it heavily.
I remember someone having a similar remark about Bambi's birth with the owl sitting in the company of baby rabbits.
I am more of a Warner Bros. animation fan than Disney although apples and oranges--Disney was aiming somewhat higher in ambitions. Fantasia was great, Sleeping Beauty too.
I think the original company was a victim of monopolies though-not capitalism. It and RKO were the only two known studios that suffered from money problems. The others never had that problem, and they were able to spread out into Europe at the same time. Walt Disney did make some films in England--and one could say he even pioneered the superhero tv show genre with Zorro and Scarecrow of Romney Marsh. But the marketplace was too crowded--it is a miracle he was able to keep productive as long as he did. But once he was dead, it was over.
I don't think Wall Street Disney is remotely the same in attitude and objective. It is unabashedly globalist and hostile to Walt Disney's traditional audience target.
I find the 90s Disney animations rather smarmy. Very Broadway showtune in feeling--and in your face about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 3, 2019 2:06:54 GMT
moviemouth But then again... the "average person"* pretty much knows or cares squat about what inspired The Lion King or any other movie. The "average person" just watches movies and either likes them or doesn't. *average person being someone who isn't "into" movies and has never heard of IMDb or IMDB-V2 and doesn't get into discussions such as this one …
Not to mention that many of those "average persons" would not know Hamlet if he came and sat down beside them, much less would they know any possible similarities in theme between the play and the Lion King. I meant the average movie buff. The proof is right here in this thread.  I should have made that more clear. Here is a quote right out of Roger Ebert's 1994 review of the movie that supports both sides. "The saga of Simba, which in its deeply buried origins owes something to Greek tragedy and certainly to "Hamlet."
|
|
|
|
Post by ravi02 on Apr 3, 2019 7:19:18 GMT
It's the one Disney Renaissance film where I just don't see what the big deal is. I thought the songs were mostly forgettable, maybe with the exception of Be Prepared and the story was just a re-telling of Hamlet with animals. Aside from the hero avenging his evil uncle and seeing a ghostly vision of his father, the rest of the film isn't like Hamlet at all. Simba's mother is nothing like Gertrude and it's mostly a melding of African mythologies.
Dude, they never claimed Lion King was 100% original even when it came out. They even said back in 1994 that they were influenced by numerous literary, cultural and mythical sources.
Anyway, my reasons for liking the film:
- The great vocal performances. James Earl Jones and Jeremy Irons give some of my favorite performances in an animated film ever as they both fill their roles beautifully. Cheech Marin, Whoopi Goldberg, Rowan Atkinson, Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella all fill their roles well too.
- The perfect blend of dramatic bits (Mufasa's death still hits me as an adult) and comedic situations help make the story feel multi-dimensional and makes the story more involving than most animated films.
- The supporting characters are just as engrossing as the main ones
- The wonderful animations of the African Savannah and all its creatures
- Rafiki the mandrill. How can you not love an ape mentor who offers sagely advice and also dishes the hurt on hyena henchmen?
- Also, the songs were "forgettable" to you? Let me tell you back in the 90's every kid knew the words to every song in this film and Hakuna Matata was quoted endlessly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xcalatë on Apr 3, 2019 8:01:55 GMT
I think it came just at the right time in the 90's for many people, my cousin was obsessed with it when she was 5 or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Apr 3, 2019 11:48:12 GMT
It is the most overrated Disney movie. It is not bad by any means, but I think many of their movies are better. 95% of the Pixar movies are better and even movies like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast are better. I still see these films all of the time because of my kids. I think people just have nostalgia for the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Apr 3, 2019 11:53:22 GMT
I do think its good, but its not the best animated Disney movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 3, 2019 13:18:24 GMT
As much as I don't care for it, I still prefer it to Frozen and Hunchback.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Apr 3, 2019 16:28:45 GMT
The Hamlet inspired story (I find it very odd that you are criticizing it for this) The beautiful animation Hans Zimmer's fantastic score Scar (Jeremy Irons's voice-work is all time great and so is the visual design of the character) Timone and Pumba The songs (especially "Be Prepared") The all time great opening scene The editing It has the strongest personality of all the Disney animated movies imo. ^^^THESE^^^ And in particular these: The beautiful animation, Hans Zimmer's fantastic score
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Apr 3, 2019 20:07:02 GMT
I dislike it specifically because my girlfriend in high school had a little sister that insisted we watch this on VHS just about every time I spent time over there.  This scene was pretty cool though.  |
|
