Disney has been on a role with it's recent trend of live action remakes of their animated films. While not so much critically, finacially speaking they're some of the companies most successful films outside of Marvel and Lucasfilm. The Lion King though is an interesting example of because aside from one shot, the entire movie is completely animated with photorealistic CGI. This has had many people questioning it's purpose for existing if the original was already animated. In this post, I'd like to explain what separates this film from the original animated masterpiece and why it's a solid film in it's own right.
While it's easy to point the finger at the financial success of these live action remakes, the actual teason for this film's existence is far more telling. After The Jungle Book (2016) was given positive feedback for the visual effects on the animals, Jon Favreau pondered the idea of an entire feature film using the same photo realistic technology. He's not the first man to pitch such an ambitious concept to Disney (as they have films such as Dinosaur and A Christmas Carol in their library), but the goal with this film was what convinced Disney to give it the greenlight. The goal of Jon Favreau's The Lion King was not to outshine the original, but to set a new standard for the use of photo realistic CGI in a feature film. Yes, this is an animated film, but it's how it utilizes the medium that sets it apart from any other animated film made today.
But why The Lion King as opposed to a book or comic that also has a strong absence of humans? Well, this is because Jon Favreau was a fan of the original film as well as the Broadway show and he wanted to honor both of them. This is why he brought back Hans Zimmer, Lebo M, Elton John and Tim Rice to compose the music as opposed to getting someone else. He also brought James Earl Jones back to reprise his role as Mufasa and Shahdai Wright Joseph as the voice of Nala as a cub (like she did in the Broadway show). That said though, he still brought in new voices for his version, such as Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar, JD McCrary and Donald Glover as Simba, Beyonce as adult Nala, and many more. In addition to using the old songs, the film incorporates a new song from Beyonce called Spirit, which plays as Simba is returning to the Pride Lands. There's also a new song from Elton John that plays during the credits called Never Too Late, which perfect captures the arc Simba goes through. All that's well and good, but how's the plot and characters? Well, in my opinion, both are handled really well.
It's understandable why people were disappointed that this film recreated some of the best moments from the original film as opposed to doing something new. That said, it does have plent of new material that make it stand on it's own. Scar is given more of an edge (similar to Shere Khan in the 2016 Jungle Book), Shenzi has a more prominent role, as does Sarabi, Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan bring their own personal improve to Timon and Pumba, the oasis they reside in feels more lived in, and thanks to the amazing technology, this film captures the beauty of the African Savannah in the style of a nature documentary instead of a painting (both work great mind you). All that said, I'm glad the film stayed true to the original film's message of growing up and accepting responsibility. I'm glad it still maintained that iconic father and son relationship between Mufasa and Simba, as there would've been something missing if that wasn't in the film. Also, I like how they incorporated the songs into this more grounded take on the film as it found creative ways to enhance the visuals without losing its aesthetic. I especially like how in the "young warthog" segment of Hakuna Matata, not only do we see Pumbaa as a baby warthog (and he's so adorable) but he even sings the word farted, which gave me a good chuckle.
That's not to say it all works as there's a reason why as good as this film is, it was never going to top the original in terms of quality. Because most animals don't have cheek bones, the characters in this film have limited facial expressions. This makes it difficult to understand what their feeling outside of their tone of voice and their actions. The song Be Prepared is more of a chant this time around, which I understand, but it doesn't quite leave the same impact as the other songs in the film. Lastly, the climax is adequate, if not a bit underwhelming because you can't clearly tell who's fighting who; not even Jon Favreau himself could tell as seen in the commentary on the Blu-Ray.
Overall, I get why many prople disliked Jon Favreau's The Lion King. It's got it's fair share of problems, but overall is still a good watch. Something that has always rubbed be the wrong way is when people claim this undermines the hard work and talent of the original. I do not believe this to be true at all as not only do the filmmakers of the original film get credit for the film, but in the behind the scenes featurettes and in interviews Jon Favreau has had nothing but admiration for the artists who worked on the origin. It was never his goal to make the original inferior, but rather honor it with this new film. Still, you're free to dislike this film and prefer the original, same as I'm free to enjoy this film and give credit where it's due.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
OPINION: Marvel movies ARE cinema
Martin Scorsese said Marvel movies aren't real cinema. This is a shockingly ignorant thing to say, especially from a man whose been in the business for over 56 years. If he had just said he didn't care for them but appreciates the hard work and talent that goes into the making of these films, I'd be perfectly okay with it. Instead, he compared them to theme park rides and said they're invading cinema, leaving little to no room for original and artistic films. This is the kind of thing I expect Adam from YourMovieSucksDotOrg to say, not an Academy Award winning director with so many great films under his belt (Raging Bull, Goodfellas, The Departed, Taxi Driver, just to name a few). I expected better from a man his age because contrary to his ignorance, Marvel movies are just as much cinema as all of his movies. Allow me to explain in the following post.
A cinema's primary function in our society is to show audiences a movie for 90-150 minutes of their time. It has been like that since Day 1 of filmmaking, long before Scorsese was even born. Cinemas today have vastly changed since the early days Hollywood, not just in terms of the movies they show, but also in terms of hospitality. Regal Theaters (or at least the one closest to me) have comfortable seats, great service, plentiful snacks and reasonable showing times. I don't know what it's like in other theater chains, but Regal seems to be doing just fine even in today's entertainment climate. It is true though that people come in droves to see Marvel movies as well as other blockbusters, but to say they're not cinema really undermines the filmmakers behind these films.
Marvel movies (specifically the Marvel Cinematic Universe) have been on a role at the box office since 2008 and it's not just because they're spectacle. If that were the case, the franchise would've lost steam after The Avengers and we would not be here talking about these movies today. Contrary to what people like Scorsese think, the MCU tell great stories with amazing well rounded characters, well handled and topical themes and outstanding performances from the actors involved. These are the same qualities that make any movie great, including Martin Scorsese's. Some of the most revered moments in the MCU aren't always the action set pieces, but are more so the character moments and subtle artistic choice the director's themselves put in. The Shawarma post credit scene, Frigga's funeral, Tony's struggle with anxiety and PTSD, Groot's sacrifice, the entirety of Black Panther, the list goes on. It's moments like these that made the general movie going audience fall in love with these movies and keep coming back for more.
It also should be noted that it's because of big blockbusters like the MCU movies that cinema's are still in business. Not many people know this, but the amount of money a big budget film makes at the box office doesn't just go to the studio that made it. Theaters chains like AMC and Regal gain a third of the total grossing of a film. That means a financially successful year for Marvel is an equally successful year for movie theaters. This is also good news for other film studios that have their films showing around the same time as Marvel films. While they don't always make the same amount of money, they do get more people interested in seeing them then they would when a Marvel (or any blockbuster) film would be playing that month. It also should be worth noting that a film doesn't have to make over hundreds of millions of dollars to be successful. If a film was made for just $50 million, it just needs to make at least $100 million to make it's money back. With films that cost $100 million or more, they need to gross about 3x their budget in order to cover that and marketing. It's always a gamble making a movie that costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars because at the end of the day nobody knows what everybody wants.
Martin Scorsese's comments regarding Marvel films seem to stem from a bias against big budget movies overshadowing independent works. The thing is though, many of the directors of big budget movies he detests started out working on smaller indie films. James Gunn, Zack Snyder, Scott Derrickson, Shane Black, Taika Wattiti, Ryan Coogler, Patty Jenkins, J.J. Abrams, just to name a few. It's baffling why he would say such an ignorant statement regarding Marvel movies when he could barely sit through them. He could've just said "I don't watch them. I get that they're popular now, but they're not for me" and just leave it at that. Nope, instead he decided to throw talented filmmakers under the bus by calling Marvel movies "not real cinema." I'm not mad, just very disappointed. In conclusion, Mr. Scorsese, if you're reading this (he's not, but let's pretend he is), as talented of a filmmaker you are, you completely dropped the ball with your ignorant and bias comments regarding Marvel movies. Like I always say: Your Opinion Is NOT Law -.-
A cinema's primary function in our society is to show audiences a movie for 90-150 minutes of their time. It has been like that since Day 1 of filmmaking, long before Scorsese was even born. Cinemas today have vastly changed since the early days Hollywood, not just in terms of the movies they show, but also in terms of hospitality. Regal Theaters (or at least the one closest to me) have comfortable seats, great service, plentiful snacks and reasonable showing times. I don't know what it's like in other theater chains, but Regal seems to be doing just fine even in today's entertainment climate. It is true though that people come in droves to see Marvel movies as well as other blockbusters, but to say they're not cinema really undermines the filmmakers behind these films.
Marvel movies (specifically the Marvel Cinematic Universe) have been on a role at the box office since 2008 and it's not just because they're spectacle. If that were the case, the franchise would've lost steam after The Avengers and we would not be here talking about these movies today. Contrary to what people like Scorsese think, the MCU tell great stories with amazing well rounded characters, well handled and topical themes and outstanding performances from the actors involved. These are the same qualities that make any movie great, including Martin Scorsese's. Some of the most revered moments in the MCU aren't always the action set pieces, but are more so the character moments and subtle artistic choice the director's themselves put in. The Shawarma post credit scene, Frigga's funeral, Tony's struggle with anxiety and PTSD, Groot's sacrifice, the entirety of Black Panther, the list goes on. It's moments like these that made the general movie going audience fall in love with these movies and keep coming back for more.
It also should be noted that it's because of big blockbusters like the MCU movies that cinema's are still in business. Not many people know this, but the amount of money a big budget film makes at the box office doesn't just go to the studio that made it. Theaters chains like AMC and Regal gain a third of the total grossing of a film. That means a financially successful year for Marvel is an equally successful year for movie theaters. This is also good news for other film studios that have their films showing around the same time as Marvel films. While they don't always make the same amount of money, they do get more people interested in seeing them then they would when a Marvel (or any blockbuster) film would be playing that month. It also should be worth noting that a film doesn't have to make over hundreds of millions of dollars to be successful. If a film was made for just $50 million, it just needs to make at least $100 million to make it's money back. With films that cost $100 million or more, they need to gross about 3x their budget in order to cover that and marketing. It's always a gamble making a movie that costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars because at the end of the day nobody knows what everybody wants.
Martin Scorsese's comments regarding Marvel films seem to stem from a bias against big budget movies overshadowing independent works. The thing is though, many of the directors of big budget movies he detests started out working on smaller indie films. James Gunn, Zack Snyder, Scott Derrickson, Shane Black, Taika Wattiti, Ryan Coogler, Patty Jenkins, J.J. Abrams, just to name a few. It's baffling why he would say such an ignorant statement regarding Marvel movies when he could barely sit through them. He could've just said "I don't watch them. I get that they're popular now, but they're not for me" and just leave it at that. Nope, instead he decided to throw talented filmmakers under the bus by calling Marvel movies "not real cinema." I'm not mad, just very disappointed. In conclusion, Mr. Scorsese, if you're reading this (he's not, but let's pretend he is), as talented of a filmmaker you are, you completely dropped the ball with your ignorant and bias comments regarding Marvel movies. Like I always say: Your Opinion Is NOT Law -.-
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
In defense of Pixar
Introduction
For the longest time, Pixar has been the top pioneer animation company thanks to the innovation and creativity of their features. Yet for the past several years, there's been thi as stigma that Pixar lost its touch and it doesn't like taking risks anymore. It also doesn't help that in 2017, John Lasseter, the man who helped shaped what Pixar (and Disney) what it is today, was accused of unwanted hugs and kisses from former employees. I'd like to take the time to address these critisms and why Pixar is still as creative as ever.
Lasseter's Last Days
It's well known at this point about the egregious accusations made against John Lasseter in 2017 during the rise of the #MeToo movement. He was accused of unwarranted hugs and kisses and generally being making a select few former Pixar employees feel uncomfortable. Make no mistake, these accusations are as shocking now as they were when they were in the news, but it's worth noting that these behind the scene drama do not show in the final product of films such as Coco, Incredibles 2 or Toy Story 4 (the last films Pixar released following the controversy). Whether you like these films are not, the quality of these films is still very much Pixar's standard and should be judged as such. I fully understand why people were disappointed in John Lasseter, but please don't throw all the talented artists at Pixar under the bus with him. It helps no one.
The Case For All The Sequels
In the 2010 decade, Pixar had made a total of 8 sequels to their original films. The general consensus is that they're derivative or completely unnecessary and I have to disagree strongly. Pixar's rule for making a sequel to any of their films is if they have an idea for a story that's as good (or better) than the one that came before. Many people give Cars 2 a bad rap because of Mater being the main character as opposed to Lightning McQueen and for being a spy movie in a world full of anthropomorphic cars. Personally though, I think the whole point of a sequel is to be a standalone adventure while also expanding on the world set up by the first film. The same is also true for Monster's University, which I think they made the right call in going with a prequel instead of a sequel. In addition to expanding the monster world, it also showcased how Mike and Sully became best friends. Finding Dory and Incredibles 2 have often been label for being derivative and I think that undermines the merit of directors Andrew Stanton and Brad Bird. To call these films derivative is ignoring the elements of world building, the vlearly improved animation quality, the memorable new characters and the themes each film presents in a unique and amazing way. To call these films derivative is to imply the directors got lazy after and went with the easy route, which is both untrue and really insulting. I get it's all a matter of taste but the crew at Pixar still poured their hearts and souls into the sequels just like they did with the originals.
The Well Is STILL Full
There's been this odd notion that Pixar is running out of original ideas for film. This mindset is false and completely devalues the creativity of the people at Pixar. In addition to the 8 sequels, Pixar also made 4 great original films with their own distinct vision and atmosphere. Brave seems to get a bad rap for beating Wreck-It Ralph for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars. I agree Wreck-It Ralph is a great film, but I feel as though the prize could've been given to either film. Brave was a great coming of age tale that also served as an ode to Scottish culture. I also think this film deserves more credit for depicting a mother/daughter relationship not often seen in animated films. Then there's The Good Dinosaur's underperformance at the box office (making $332.2 million on a budget of $175 million). This had less to do with the quality of the film itself and more to do with it's budget and marketing costs. The film was revised during production with a change in cast and director, and that's not uncommon in the animation (or even film) industry. It is disappointing The Good Dinosaur underperformed, especially when it came out the same year as Inside Out, which was both a critical and financial success. Lastly there's Coco, a film that celebrated Dia de los Muertos and Mexican music. People often compare it to The Book Of Life, which was released in 2014 (3 years prior to Coco). I very much see this as coincidence as director Lee Unkrich pitched the idea for Coco back in 2010, long before Book of Life was even released. Also I think it's great that there's more than one animated film celebrating Dia de los Muertos and Mexican culture: I hope there more where that came from. All that said and done, Pixar actually has a tone of original ideas coming for the foreseeable future, starting with Onward and Soul in 2020. They also have films coming out in 2021 and 2022 and they're all going to be original as they're holding off making sequels for a while.
Conclusion
Overall, the notion that Pixar's quality has been declining this past decade is nothing short of false. Sure, there were mistakes made behind the scene, but Pixar has maintained the same quality in their films as they did when they first started with Toy Story. I look forward to seeing what they have in store for us in the future and how each of their new films will turn out.
For the longest time, Pixar has been the top pioneer animation company thanks to the innovation and creativity of their features. Yet for the past several years, there's been thi as stigma that Pixar lost its touch and it doesn't like taking risks anymore. It also doesn't help that in 2017, John Lasseter, the man who helped shaped what Pixar (and Disney) what it is today, was accused of unwanted hugs and kisses from former employees. I'd like to take the time to address these critisms and why Pixar is still as creative as ever.
Lasseter's Last Days
It's well known at this point about the egregious accusations made against John Lasseter in 2017 during the rise of the #MeToo movement. He was accused of unwarranted hugs and kisses and generally being making a select few former Pixar employees feel uncomfortable. Make no mistake, these accusations are as shocking now as they were when they were in the news, but it's worth noting that these behind the scene drama do not show in the final product of films such as Coco, Incredibles 2 or Toy Story 4 (the last films Pixar released following the controversy). Whether you like these films are not, the quality of these films is still very much Pixar's standard and should be judged as such. I fully understand why people were disappointed in John Lasseter, but please don't throw all the talented artists at Pixar under the bus with him. It helps no one.
The Case For All The Sequels
In the 2010 decade, Pixar had made a total of 8 sequels to their original films. The general consensus is that they're derivative or completely unnecessary and I have to disagree strongly. Pixar's rule for making a sequel to any of their films is if they have an idea for a story that's as good (or better) than the one that came before. Many people give Cars 2 a bad rap because of Mater being the main character as opposed to Lightning McQueen and for being a spy movie in a world full of anthropomorphic cars. Personally though, I think the whole point of a sequel is to be a standalone adventure while also expanding on the world set up by the first film. The same is also true for Monster's University, which I think they made the right call in going with a prequel instead of a sequel. In addition to expanding the monster world, it also showcased how Mike and Sully became best friends. Finding Dory and Incredibles 2 have often been label for being derivative and I think that undermines the merit of directors Andrew Stanton and Brad Bird. To call these films derivative is ignoring the elements of world building, the vlearly improved animation quality, the memorable new characters and the themes each film presents in a unique and amazing way. To call these films derivative is to imply the directors got lazy after and went with the easy route, which is both untrue and really insulting. I get it's all a matter of taste but the crew at Pixar still poured their hearts and souls into the sequels just like they did with the originals.
The Well Is STILL Full
There's been this odd notion that Pixar is running out of original ideas for film. This mindset is false and completely devalues the creativity of the people at Pixar. In addition to the 8 sequels, Pixar also made 4 great original films with their own distinct vision and atmosphere. Brave seems to get a bad rap for beating Wreck-It Ralph for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars. I agree Wreck-It Ralph is a great film, but I feel as though the prize could've been given to either film. Brave was a great coming of age tale that also served as an ode to Scottish culture. I also think this film deserves more credit for depicting a mother/daughter relationship not often seen in animated films. Then there's The Good Dinosaur's underperformance at the box office (making $332.2 million on a budget of $175 million). This had less to do with the quality of the film itself and more to do with it's budget and marketing costs. The film was revised during production with a change in cast and director, and that's not uncommon in the animation (or even film) industry. It is disappointing The Good Dinosaur underperformed, especially when it came out the same year as Inside Out, which was both a critical and financial success. Lastly there's Coco, a film that celebrated Dia de los Muertos and Mexican music. People often compare it to The Book Of Life, which was released in 2014 (3 years prior to Coco). I very much see this as coincidence as director Lee Unkrich pitched the idea for Coco back in 2010, long before Book of Life was even released. Also I think it's great that there's more than one animated film celebrating Dia de los Muertos and Mexican culture: I hope there more where that came from. All that said and done, Pixar actually has a tone of original ideas coming for the foreseeable future, starting with Onward and Soul in 2020. They also have films coming out in 2021 and 2022 and they're all going to be original as they're holding off making sequels for a while.
Conclusion
Overall, the notion that Pixar's quality has been declining this past decade is nothing short of false. Sure, there were mistakes made behind the scene, but Pixar has maintained the same quality in their films as they did when they first started with Toy Story. I look forward to seeing what they have in store for us in the future and how each of their new films will turn out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)