In the age of advancing CGI, "The Lion King" is definitely one of the best visual movies I've ever seen. The animals are highly realistic, the surroundings were vivid, and at times when there was no dialogue, you might think you're watching a documentary on Nat Geo. It is a beautiful movie but if you've seen the original movie, you'll see that this movie is a near-replica of the original, with scenes that come right out of the original, adopting identical framings, etc. It adds very little to the original movie and its status as a "remake" is very spot-on.
The animals are very lifelike and beautiful to watch. That said, just as I think real lions are hard to distinguish from one another, I also feel like the lions here are very hard to distinguish from one another. It helps Mufasa and adult Simba are never in the same scene, because I would be very confused. However, the lionesses are very identical to one another, and it's only because I'm familiar with the fact that Nala is the main lioness in the story, that I was able to distinguish her from the other lionesses. The standout design was Scar, though, and while he's not as colorful as the cartoon version (black mane, green lions), his rugged look, and not to forget with an actual scar across his left eye, presents a terrifying villain, elevating one of Disney's best villains into another level.
Another drawback with realism is that it's hard to discern emotions from the animals, aside from smiles, etc. But it's difficult to obtain the same amount of expression as in the original, where the eyes are so much more flexible. It loses a certain degree of charm, and has to be made up by the voice actors. I personally found Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor), Timon (Billy Eichner), and Pumba (Seth Rogen) to be highlights in the movie, and their vocal performances were top-notch.
Ultimately, "The Lion King" is a beautiful movie that is the definition of a "remake" in the most literal sense. Even the dialogue is highly identical, save for some modern updates to connect with today's audience. It's visually splendid and I had a good time watching the movie, and while everything is highly familiar, it was still a great experience getting to see how those animated frames get translated into the hyper-realistic renderings. However, now having watched both, I'm still unsure in the future, which version I would watch when I want to revisit the story. This remake is a technological marvel, but the original had strong colors, vivid emotions, and just an overall animated charm that a live-action version just can't have. Let's leave it at 50-50.
The animals are very lifelike and beautiful to watch. That said, just as I think real lions are hard to distinguish from one another, I also feel like the lions here are very hard to distinguish from one another. It helps Mufasa and adult Simba are never in the same scene, because I would be very confused. However, the lionesses are very identical to one another, and it's only because I'm familiar with the fact that Nala is the main lioness in the story, that I was able to distinguish her from the other lionesses. The standout design was Scar, though, and while he's not as colorful as the cartoon version (black mane, green lions), his rugged look, and not to forget with an actual scar across his left eye, presents a terrifying villain, elevating one of Disney's best villains into another level.
Another drawback with realism is that it's hard to discern emotions from the animals, aside from smiles, etc. But it's difficult to obtain the same amount of expression as in the original, where the eyes are so much more flexible. It loses a certain degree of charm, and has to be made up by the voice actors. I personally found Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor), Timon (Billy Eichner), and Pumba (Seth Rogen) to be highlights in the movie, and their vocal performances were top-notch.
Ultimately, "The Lion King" is a beautiful movie that is the definition of a "remake" in the most literal sense. Even the dialogue is highly identical, save for some modern updates to connect with today's audience. It's visually splendid and I had a good time watching the movie, and while everything is highly familiar, it was still a great experience getting to see how those animated frames get translated into the hyper-realistic renderings. However, now having watched both, I'm still unsure in the future, which version I would watch when I want to revisit the story. This remake is a technological marvel, but the original had strong colors, vivid emotions, and just an overall animated charm that a live-action version just can't have. Let's leave it at 50-50.