It's official, there's gonna be a tlk remake.

[Elton John]

Oh! You're right.

[Hatari05]

[quote="Rollo"]You're almost implying that we should expect a poor movie, Hatari. Of course this remake will never be better than the original, but how could it? You're not only asking people to recreate the magic that occured in the production of the first film, but also asking for the remake to have the same impact that it had on so many kids growing up in the 90s and the early 2000s--nostalgia plays a big part in what makes this film so wonderful, and the era that it was released in also plays a big part. But the fact that it manages to hold up today and is still called one of the greatest movies of all time was purely due to how well the story writing, development, casting and animation were. Plus a bunch of other factors too. There's a lot of movies I grew up with that I loved (Simba's Pride being one of them), but I know they're not good movies. But that's fine. They're harmless; they just aren't worthy sequels.

There's a reason why these sequels are not regarded in the same way, although SP also benefits from being released in this special era, which is why so many people love it--because they grew up with it, like I did. Not because it's a good movie. If SP held its standards to the quality of the first, it would've been a far better movie. We would've had amazing animation, an even better story, better songs, because there would've been an actual theatrical-intended team behind it. But it wasn't--it was a cash cow. It was undoubtedly made to cash in on the success of the first movie. It's still so disappointing to me that Disney didn't set out to create another theatrical release for the second instalment of their greatest movie (at the time), although I know that's because Disney didn't believe in theatrical releases for their sequels. I actually think that's a good decision on their part...I think SP's critical feedback would've been 100% worse if it had been released in theatres. Disney knew SP wasn't good enough for theatres. If they thought the movie could've made an extraordinary amount of money (and they did, that's why they send out so many VHS copies to stores for its release), they would've probably given it a theatrical release. (I believe that's what they intended to do with the third movie before they realised it just wouldn't have worked.) But, they knew it wasn't as good because the budget they had set and the people they had chosen to work on it meant the animation was poor and the story was pretty lackluster, and it would've been very embarrassing for it to hit cinemas. It was just a quick and easy way to make money. Unfortunately, that's Hollywood.

I'm not just hating on Simba's Pride specifically, by the way. I just feel like so many aren't aware that there are Lion Kings fans who don't like SP and find it embarrassing, and I'm one of them. That's it. There's a bunch of other examples I could give. Like Jurassic Park III for instance. Another blatant cash cow. (Many people could say the same about The Lost World, but I actually really liked The Lost World--but I know it's not anywhere near as amazing as the original JP, and I know it's not a good movie. That doesn't mean I don't like it though.)

That's not the same scenario here. Disney HAVE given out an enormous budget and assigned a top Hollywood director to make the movie. This is not so much of a cash cow than it is an actual project. So my faith in this movie triumphing over the sequels has pretty much exploded. And I'm excited! We're finally gonna get a good follow-up.

I'm asking for them to make their standards high so that this movie can stand on its own feet. So it's NOT a sequel--it is a remake, like it's intended to be, and it feels like a remake. I don't want a CGI version of the original movie, which I think is what you may have assumed I wanted from my post. Everything to be the exact same and as great as the first. I'd like it to be as great, but what I could easily find great, another person could find boring. Like you said, it depends on how you look at the first movie.

In the simplest terms, I am looking for a retelling/slight retread of the first film. Whatever they choose to do, I'm open to it, just as long as it's treated as its own movie. Almost as though they were making the first movie all over again, and they're not sure if it's gonna be good, but they're aiming for this timeless magic anyway... wait, that's what a remake is

EDIT: I looked back at what I said in the post you were referring to, and I didn't ask for an improvement on the first movie. I asked for an improvement on Simba's Pride and 1 1/2. I really, really don't think it's difficult for Jon Favreau, who has just made the new Jungle Book, which ranked in $966 million and 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, to make a better movie than those two. Unless he has reverted to his student film days.[/quote]


No that's not what I am saying at all I didn't want to go into this but it's clear you missed my point well I'll be direct. Was the first LK great yes are fans blinded by nostalgia absolutely. You already made the first mistake can it match the original yes it can becaus there are places it can improve. LK is beatable it is not some unreachable standard stop saying that. It can be beaten by simply overcoming it's original flaws. How could it be as good, you already set yourself up for disappointment. LK can be topped it's not some unreachable standard of quality, it had flaws some pretty big ones that the remake should correct SP actually did it ran into flaws of it own but it corrected most of the firsts flaws.

LK was about Simba and only Simba if you try to delve into any other character you will not find much because every character exists to prop up Simba they have no arcs of their own no journeys, no development. Simba's development is great everyone else's is nonexistent. The remake should improve upon this like the sequel did. SP improved on character development and it's not difficult to notice.

Kovu compared to Nala from the first Kovu has more development this can't be argued. Nuka all three hyenas while underdeveloped still Nuka certainly gets more of an arc than the hyenas do, it's underdeveloped but there's more to the character. Simba gets plenty of development he definitely has an arc that builds off of the first he certainly gets more focus than Mufasa or Nala or anyone but Simba and that's only because of the cub bits. Zira is more fleshed out than Scar we don't know her relationship with him exactly but we know she cared about him very deeply, brother, friend, mentor lover it doesn't matter we as human beings understand love whatever type of love it may be there's no reason not to feel for her motive. She's way more multi layered than Scar who was just evil, Zira has humanity as Nuka's death shows.

What's my point here simple yes the animation was better, yes the songs were better but SP did character development better a direct to video did character development better than a big budget theatrical release that is regarded as a masterpiece. Are some arcs underdeveloped yes but they're there the movie isn't just about one character. The characters at least some of them have their own journeys however small they may be they don't exist just to prop up one character. That's my point a direct to video did character development better than a theatrical, obviously there was room for improvement in that category.

LK II touched on some very heavy themes just like the first did, it explores parental neglect and abuse, it explores revenge and forgiveness, it goes into ideas of war, racisms to an extent. The plot involves in an assassination attempt, Zira's kids are pretty much self destructive suicide bombers. Whether they were done right is up for debate but that's not a cash grab not even close there's some clear effort in this script.

To not see any of this especially the improvement in character development is to be biased. That's my point the first movie was great but there was room for improvement which so few acknowledge if many fans were asked to make a remake or a sequel of the original they would have no idea what to do because it's virtually flawless to them you can't improve that. Yet you can there are many ways to improve the original some which SP did and others it didn't. Character development in LK could've been improved, Nala could've had a bigger role and been given her own arc, or Shenzi, Banzai and Ed could've had a more fleshed out relationship with Scar anything that doesn't involve Simba really. The remake can be an epic that delves deeper, explores characters better, has a more complex story due to these factors and so much more. It can absolutely be as good if taken to it's fullest it can be better but only if you take the original off that pedestal.

It's not about expecting a poor movie it's about taking the original off the pedestal you put it on and looking from an unbiased perspective. TDK is a great movie but it was put on a pedestal and the whole trilogy suffered because of it. ESB was a great movie but it was put on a pedestal and the franchise is still suffering for it because nothing can live up to it even if it does almost everything better. Spiderman 2 is put on a pedestal despite being very flawed. That's my point is your disappointment because of quality or is it because you have held the original to such a standard that nothing can live up to it? The remake can be as good or better to immediately assume it can't is to decide it won't, if you convince yourself it can never be then it won't matter how good the movie is it won't match the original. The key is balance acknowledging how good the original is yet also admitting it can be improved this lowers it to a reachable standard you can't match a perfect movie.

[Carl]

I certainly do agree that TLK has been put on a pedestal by its fans, that much becomes apparent when one sees how many people absolutely despise 1.5/3 for ruining the majesty of the film. And I definitely agree there's a lot of room for improvement in TLK (as well as its sequels, including TLG). In fact that's part of what draws me to write fanfictions, because as much as I love all the TLK movies and TLG, I definitely feel like there are some areas where they are all lacking. I definitely see a lot of ways this remake could enrich and improve on the original. I honestly want some more character development for Scar, perhaps a small role for Zira, a bit more darkness (which could be done by touching on Scar's reign). I'd also really like to see more on the hyenas, maybe get some background on why they're not allowed into the Pridelands. There's a lot of ways this could be better than the original movie, if done right.

However, they could also easily rely too heavily on the original film and totally ruin it. Or they could take it in a direction that just doesn't work.

[Elton John]

I don't value character development that much. I mean, it's not as important as having nuanced characters and having them react to situations in logical ways.

Most character development is predictable and trite. Probably because you can predict how a character will develop right from their introduction. Scar got no development, but he's a great villain in spite of it. He has a flair for the dramatic, manipulative, and doesn't pull many punches. Mufasa got no development, but the impact of his death comes from how awesome of a dad he is.

Simba got good development but I liked him more as a cub because he was a fun character.

The Joker from the dark knight as an example. No development, a stagnant character but a fairly nuanced and unpredictable one. The movie was great because of Heath Ledgers performance as one of the most iconic villains ever.

The first movie is well loved because it has a solid story, solid cast, great acting, great animation, and an awesome soundtrack. The story also takes a lot of risks for a disney film.

It's a combination of mostly everything about it being really good.

There are movies that do aspects better but certain movies are iconic because they do mostly everything right. In retrospect tlk isn't perfect but back in 1994 it was the most awesome disney movie ever. I watched it opening week, and it had the biggest impact on me of any film I watched then.

Another important aspect is cinematography and choreography. TLK did a lot of things in 1994 that no other animated film did at the time. So many amazing shots and sequences.

[Carl]

Good character development is essential for characters to be relatable, though. Yes a lot of times that's not something that media achieves very well but the fact is people change over the course of things happening to them and anything that doesn't reflect that is difficult to relate to, and by extension harder to get very connected to.

This is why I actually prefer characters from SP to characters from the first movie. They were much more dynamic and interesting and they seemed more realistic. From a plot perspective and animation and music the first film is unquestioningly superior. And it is a great film. But it is lacking in places, and character development is definitely one of those areas. I honestly can't relate to any of the characters in the first film based solely on that film. That's not true of the sequel, or TLG. I know the quality of the sequels is inferior, but they do have that one thing down that would make the original that much better if integrated and integrated properly. If you can predict a character's development before knowing what they go through, then it's been done incorrectly. Also characters don't need to respond logically to situations unless they are logical characters. They need to respond in ways that make sense from their perspective, which isn't always what's logical. In fact oftentimes it is illogical, because people will make decisions based on emotion (which happens a lot in TLK) and not based on what is the logical thing to do. Being illogical isn't always bad, it's human nature. But characters need to be believable, and part of being believable is developing over time.

Don't get me wrong, TLK was very amazing, especially for its time. It's still one of my favorite movies to watch (thus being on this forum). Believable character development is just one thing I think the remake could do to improve on the source material.

[Hatari05]

Carl Skywalker: You are correct it could go terribly wrong or it could build upon it and make something great, there's always the possibility of messing something up but that doesn't mean you just go the safe route either, it's the movies that choose to do the unthinkable that audiences remember forever. I also agree with you regarding the characters of SP however I actually prefer the story as well I just find it more fleshed out and complex likely a result of me preferring the characters and their arcs, I personally find character development to be the most essential part of a story. I can enjoy a movie with a weak plot if the characters are well fleshed out but if the characters are underdeveloped little can be done to make me care. LK is driven by Simba's arc which is great combine that with a good plot and I love it but Simba is why I like the original luckily he's the main character and his arc the central focus so what I like is always there. Animation and music can't really argue with you there, since my favorite song in the sequel is a cut song from the first movie and animation isn't even debatable.

The Lionvengers: I'm not going to counter your point or anything because that is personal preference if those are the types of characters you prefer nothing wrong with it, from that perspective you are right if that is your preference LK is absolutely the better movie especially since it's still debatable even with my different preferences. Can't say I agree with you though a likable enjoyable character has never really matter to me this is why I don't care for a lot of Disney movies and why Simba was always my favorite character not Scar and why I preferred Zira. Reading some of the forums I started this probably doesn't come off as very shocking. Either way if that is what you prefer nothing wrong with it it's completely understandable. Kindly disagree with you but have nothing against your view or opinion.

[Elton John]

Likability isn't the thing. Scar is a terrible being who kills, manipulates and makes other characters suffer. The joker, while fun to watch... he kills because he thinks that it's fun to do so. Characters like those are like people you want to avoid irl.

Yes, it is indeed subjective. Even though most here have common love for the franchise that's where most of the agreements end.

What is good writing? To me, good writing is something that doesn't feel patronizing or insulting to my intellect. It's why I love a lot of disney movies besides the music and animation, I feel they have really clever and sharp writing. However what is clever and sharp differs from person to person.

Carl, I can't agree with the characters in sp being better. I really can't stand Nuka, most of the returning cast just feels...like they're there because. Vitani barely has a role. Kovu and kiara are pretty cool and zira is a decent enough villain.

Most of the characters in tlk1 feel important to the overall story. Even if in just small ways. In SP you could get rid of Nala, zazu, timon and pumbaa, maybe vitani and nuka and the story wouldn't change that much.

[Rollo]

I actually think the character development in SP should've been 100% better because one big chore had already been alleviated for the creators--the universe had been established. We had to spend quite a while in TLK establishing the universe and the setting. I agree that Mufasa has no character development but...why would he need it? He dies incredibly quickly in this movie. Character development cannot be done that quickly without it coming across as completely shoddy and poorly written. A great example of this is in Gremlins where Phoebe Cates' character just suddenly decides to get her development over and done with by telling a story about her dad dying on Christmas Eve. It's supposed to be sad, but it comes across as hilarious because it's out of nowhere. A bit off-topic, yes, but a good example for those of you trying to figure out the importance of pacing your character development.

Another good example of this is... Vitani. Where is Vitani's character development? Oh, right at the end when she suddenly decides to go against her mother's wishes. Uh, sorry, what? We have almost no forewarning to that, it just happens. As a result, it's lackluster and her character suffers for it. It's not developed--it's just an instant change of character that makes no sense whatsoever. (If we had a couple of scenes showing Vitani doubting her mother, then yes, that would've been excellent character development. But we don't.)

Nuka has great character development. Probably the best in the entire film. He's not my favourite character by any means, but certainly the most interesting one in the trio of Outlander cubs.

Kiara's character development is there, but again, similarly to Vitani, there's nothing that really shows this because Kiara seems to never face any consequences, or have a moment where she realises she's wrong. A lot of people refer to her as a mary-sue because of that and I do agree that it's hard for her to be taken seriously when she seems to be the all-mighty, all-knowing heroine. I would relate to her much better if she made actual mistakes and had to pay the price. Her character development would be a lot stronger if she did.

Kovu's development could've been wonderful, but falls flat because he doesn't really have a character at all. He's a puppet for Zira, but also lacks personality in general. He is very much the 90s archetypal emo devilishly handsome male protag. We still see this in a lot of cartoon media today. If he had been fleshed out more, and we got a lot more information on his family, his relationship with Scar and his own inner turmoil, aside from a brief scene with Kiara under the stars and him looking sad during a song, then it would've been pretty good. You know, this is TLK we're talking about. The original movie already proved that audiences can take the lion drama seriously without a song playing in the background.

Simba's further character development in TLK II is actually brilliant. I think he acts exactly as he should do, so I'll give them that. They respected him quite a bit, although the fandom make him out to be totally evil in this which is insane, but non surprising.

But yeah, character development is absolutely essential to a story. TLK wouldn't have worked if Simba's character hadn't developed and that he realised he had to face his responsibilities. We wouldn't have had a story.

EDIT: Sorry for all the edits, lol, but I don't think people realise that TLK is a coming-of-age movie. It's Bambi in Africa. What other character development did we see in Bambi aside from Bambi's himself? It's Simba's story, not anyone else's. The reason we have more character development in Simba's Pride is because it's Kiara and Kovu's story. It's impossible to compare the two in terms of character development because these are not similar stories.

We see Scar's character development. He goes from being pretty self-assured in his ways and rather dignified, to being a huge spoiled brat.

We see Nala's development, though it's subtle. She goes from being a carefree cub, much like Simba, to having to grow up instantly--compare that to Simba, who has the luxury of spending a pretty long time being a manchild.

[Carl]

[quote="The Lionvengers"]Carl, I can't agree with the characters in sp being better. I really can't stand Nuka, most of the returning cast just feels...like they're there because. Vitani barely has a role. Kovu and kiara are pretty cool and zira is a decent enough villain.

Most of the characters in tlk1 feel important to the overall story. Even if in just small ways. In SP you could get rid of Nala, zazu, timon and pumbaa, maybe vitani and nuka and the story wouldn't change that much.[/quote]
I didn't say they are better, I said I prefer them because they are more relatable to me. They definitely needed a lot of work, like everything in that film. But the only character in the first film who is relatable based on the movie itself is Simba, and if you didn't experience similar things to him, you can't relate to him either. If I create a headcanon about what happened in the time-skip, then I can relate to Nala best. But that's if we add something to what we get. For me it's very difficult to get into and connect to any form of media if there isn't at least one character I can actually relate to. That alone proves how good TLK is that I love it despite not relating to any of the characters. But that does not mean the remake couldn't do better by improving on that, or that SP doesn't deserve credit for at least trying.

[Elton John]

I do agree that development that comes from nowhere is not good development.

I don't see Scar's character as developed. He always felt like a spoiled brat, but much less so in the early parts of the movie.

I really don't know why you feel Nuka had great development, could you explain it to me?

Carl, I see what you mean now.