By: Ryan Seller
When the trailer for the remake of The Lion King came out, my first exposure to the film was through still images. I had to do a double take to realize that I wasn’t looking at photos from a nature documentary but actually a photorealistic rendering of characters from a story that we all know and love. Upon seeing snippets of the moving footage, I was shocked by how convincing the animation was, however, upon actually seeing the movie, a couple of flaws started to crop up.
The movie opens with the same scene: a long exposure to the sunset, followed by a few glimpses of different animals. If someone told me that these were taken by a real-life camera, I’d probably believe them, given that I didn’t inspect too closely. However, then comes the scene with baby Simba. Every once in a while, there is a slight motion from a character that isn’t quite believable, and it can break the immersion a bit. This is only noticeable because of how close to perfection the rest of the film is, but it is nonetheless a drawback.
However, the major issue with the film is the characters’ facial expressions. Because the movie strives to be as hyper-realistic as possible, animators can’t play around with the “stretchiness” of the animals’ faces like they could in the hand-drawn style of the original. The characters of the film are left feeling rather bland, at least by their faces. For the most part, the emotions range from closed mouth, with and without bared teeth, to open mouth. That’s about it. These expressions remove a chunk of the emotional impact that the original had.
The end of “I Just Can’t Wait to Be King.” Can’t you see their passion?
The body language ameliorates the bland facial expressions a tiny bit, but again, the realistic approach really dampens the original artistic vision. All of this is contrasted by how gosh darn beautiful the film is. Each shot is filled to the brim with tiny details that catch the eye. If there’s any reason that anyone should see the film, it’s that—that or you haven’t already experienced the original because most of the story is exactly the same. That’s what makes the film as disappointing as it is; it almost feels like the same film but worse, except hidden behind a facade of shiny fur and picturesque savanna landscapes.
I personally assumed that this would be a one-time occurrence—a show of what was possible for the future of CGI and yet another way to wow audiences into believing that Disney is the best film company in existence. Or, the film was created for another equally valid reason: money. The name alone, combined with a poster, would have viewers flocking to theaters to relive the moments of the original. If this is the case, surely people wouldn’t fall for it again after realizing the shortcomings of this film, so there’s no reason to do another. Right? However, apparently, this was only the beginning; Disney launched another realistic remake with the opening of Disney Plus: Lady and the Tramp.
The original Lady and the Tramp was less popular than The Lion King. However, when comparing the remakes, the Lady and the Tramp outclasses its non-Disney Plus exclusive counterpart. It improves upon the other film’s problems and retains the realistic style of the string of remakes that Disney has been pumping out as of late. While The Lion King was completely CGI, the Lady and the Tramp was created by animating over real footage of dogs— leading to a live-action/CGI hybrid in the vain of the “Buddies” movies.
Seemingly using the experience with CGI from The Lion King, the animation is executed very well and contributes to about as believable a story about talking dogs as has ever looked on screen. The expressions in this film seem to stray a tiny bit more in the right direction, with different facial expressions recognizable without the need to rely on the voice acting—although the tone of voice does help to sell the experience.
Additionally, the body language of the animals is noticeably impactful, regardless of whether it be attributed to our familiarity with the expressions of dogs or the fact that the actions of the animals were real as opposed to animated. It also plays in favor of this film that most people, especially children, already find dogs to be cute creatures. In general, the film has quite a bit of heart, and that gives the film an extra edge for viewers to enjoy.
Dog smirk. It’s hard to document the facial expressions without video; it’s a lot of moment-to-moment minutiae.
Although this new Lady and the Tramp adaptation makes great strides towards the perfect film of its kind, it is still debatable whether this type of film is worth pursuing in the first place. I personally prefer the expressiveness and “Disney magic” of the originals, and I don’t think that’s just nostalgia talking. Although the Lady and the Tramp does have a few of those magical moments, for the most part, it just doesn’t emotionally resonate as strongly as the passionate hand-drawn animation of the past. However, this problem might stem more from these films being remakes rather than original films.
Overall, Lady in the Tramp was a good movie, and The Lion King was okay, but they might have been doomed to fail right from the get-go because of how amazing the original films were. And you could say the same about the other Disney princess remakes that have been all the rage lately. We still all have to be prepared for more, though, because it will make the company more money. Still, if the improvements follow the trend of The Lion King to The Lady and the Tramp, maybe I won’t complain as much about another remake instead of a brand-new movie from a studio that I’ve loved for my entire life.
All hope isn’t lost, though: there are other movies that aren’t remakes coming from the film powerhouse. Frozen 2 hit the big screen recently, and that packed a big emotional punch. It is possible that the movie might not have had the same impact if it was live-action, but what I know for sure is that I hope a Frozen 2 live-action remake doesn’t come around anytime soon.
*Note: Originally published in Dog Street Journal's December "DoGcember" 2019 issue.
*Note: The article was republished due to website maintenance and grammatical issues. The original publication date is December 15th, 2019.
Kommentare