#live action Lion king

[artist-issues]

Will you be watching the Mufasa movie when it comes out? I personally don’t think I can handle it. They already demolished Lion King in their Live Action version so I don’t trust them to do right with this one.

I think I might just for one reason: they added more facial expression to the animation.

If I had to expand on that and say “I’ll go for two reasons,” it would be “this is a new story, not a remake.” There are different dangers to adding-on-to an established story, and I prefer those kinds of dangers to the ones that come when you’re trying to re-tell something that’s already been perfectly told.

I’ve said in other posts before, they changed The Lion King’s Main Point from: “Remember who you are: a King takes responsibility for the care of others.” to:

“I have self-worth.”

Which, you may notice, is pretty contradictory. It’s another one of those “let’s capitalize on a franchise everybody already buys into by re-telling it—and while we’re there, retelling it, let’s completely take back the message that the original had, and give it a completely new message based on whatever the current culture thinks is ‘correct.’”

So, selflessness out. Self-obsession in. Responsibility out. Self-validation in. Self, self, self.

Anyway.

That’s the danger of remakes. They use a “retelling” opportunity to “remake” everything that made the original good. And by remake, I mean, erase and make-worse. I digress.

This new movie won’t have those same sets of dangers. They can’t exactly ruin the original origins of Mufasa, the character, in the same way the ruined Simba—because there’s never been a really canon story about Mufasa and his brother.

(What I mean by that is, the original The Lion King film did not spell out Mufasa and Scar’s relationship or backstory in great detail within that film. The printed media and fan theories and even The Lion Guard versions of events, which came later, I don’t count, when it comes to evaluating this new movie.)

But, I will say this. It looks like, from the trailers, Mufasa and Taka aren’t blood-related. That raises my eyebrows. Why are they doing that? The fact that Scar is Mufasa’s brother in the original makes his betrayal and motivation for killing him and trying to kill Simba much more impactful. Why take that away? Also, it makes it look like Taka was supposed to inherit some sort of leadership role, and maybe choosing to adopt Mufasa winds up putting events in motion that rob him of what was otherwise his rightful rule. So that sort of further justifies Scar’s bitterness later on.

All of that is dumb. You should not make a prequel that weakens every story that comes after it. See Star Wars.

I’ve also said: Mufasa, as a character is the ideal Strong, Selfless Father/King. And he specifically states that he got his ideals from his Father, and clings to them because of a heritage, something Outside of Himself. He’s not special. He’s not the Chosen One. He’s one in a long line of good, strong men (Lion, whatever) who pass down valuing others as more important than themselves. He submits and obeys those ideals. He is the opposite of “getting my way all the time.”

Do you see why it’s important that Mufasa did not come up with those values himself? He has to get them from an authority figure who came before him. He has to be submitting to someone—even though he’s a King.

They have a high chance of ruining that.

Because it’s not very popular right now for the Western Culture to say “give your life up for others! Sacrifice your interests for the big picture! Submit yourself to someone else’s authority and wise advice, whether you feel like it or not!” But the powerful truth is, that is what Mufasa is, as a character.

I already outlined how in this post.

So this new movie has new dangers. I might go to see how it handles them. Because if they could listen to people enough to make the lions’ faces move more animatedly, maybe they have stopped and thought about how to make a good story that fits in with the original Lion King’s values. Maybe it’ll be a fix-it for the 2019 movie.

Not likely. But I’m going in with an open mind, even if I watch the trailers with skepticism. So we’ll see!

[marvelmaniac715]

Ever since 2019 the plot for my ideal live action Lion King has been brewing in my head, so allow me to share it:

A jungle explorer (a human being) or a group of explorers, is doing a safari in Africa, and they keep coming across animals doing the oddest things. Spoiler alert - it’s the events of the Lion King from the point of view of incredibly baffled human beings who don’t fully understand what’s going on, but they can still hear the music from the musical numbers and everything from the animation plays out onscreen but in the background, the more human like we can make the animals the better. The explorers’ notes will look something like this - “Oh my god I think that lion cub is riding an ostrich, what is in the water? Am I drunk? Am I hallucinating? That bird just got flattened by an elephant and it’s… pushing itself back up? Also why does this all seem choreographed?” Then when they get back home, nobody believes them when they’re like “No, I’m serious, the hyenas were marching in formation to a very evil sounding drumbeat as a bizarrely menacing looking lion in need of medical treatment gave a speech- I’m not insane!” And when they start trying to tell the people around them that a lion cub was framed for murder by a cartoonishly evil older lion, they are only given pitying looks. Then, at the very end, Rafiki (who - I forgot to mention this part of the pitch - has been whacking the explorers over the head with his stick throughout the movie for no apparent reason) comes over to the explorers and hands them a piece of wood containing a message that, written in perfect English, invites them to the presentation ceremony of Nala and Simba’s cub, since they were such a vital part of both rulers’ upbringing. Basically it’s Lion King 1 1/2 with even more confusion.

[missamerican-pie]

[mann-of-1000-thoughts]

I go over the Live action Lilo and Stitch and Mufasa the lion king trailers from D23.

[the-solar-system52]

my younger sister just made me suffer through the live action Lion King adaptation and I think I need to be lobotomized

[pansexualkiba]

decided to watch the live action lion king while also watching every equivalent scene of the original lion king. and i can safely conclude. absolutely nothing of value is in the remake and in fact it actively subtracts from the story it is attempting to talk about

[therealeagal]

Rating Disney films

I'm waiting on an event that will occur in my approximate future, so while I wait I thought I would kill time with a rating of some Disney movies. What a lark! But before we begin:

Item: The scale will be F, D, C, B, A. Normally I would consider C to be the base starting point, but since Disney is a heartless mega-conglomerate that would sell orphan souls if they thought there was a market for it, I'm sorry to say that every film is automatically docked a point, so we're starting at D.

Item: I'm only going to cover the ones I've seen, and only the ones from pretty recently. The last ten years, let's say. Otherwise we'll be here all day and I probably will have got shit to do.

Ok, let's go.

Frozen. Elsa and Anna and their hangs-on that no one really cares about. Good music. Idina Menzel? Holy shit I got it right on the first try. Go me! Idina is a great singer, so that bumps Frozen up a notch. Great animation, except for that one bit during Let It Go where Elsa's ponytail phases through her arm, but I guess I'll...let it go. Eh? Eh? Come on admit it, that was funny. A dumb subversion of true love, but then an interesting subversion of the subversion so I'll give it a point. But then there's...everything else. Preventable conflict, forgettable everyone that isn't Elsa and Anna, stupid character decisions, a twist villain who has literally no reason to exist and who is not connected to the central conflict in any way whatsoever. It's the works. Also, I'm told there's some debate over whether the side character Oaken is married to a man or woman. The art style makes it hard to tell. Normally I'd give it a point but since this is Disney, I'm going to file that under "Gay reference so that Disney gets bonus points but it was super minor so that Disney can easily edit it out for international releases in countries that hate the LGBT community". Which loses it a point instead.

Final score: F. Oh yeah. Coming out of the gate swinging. I wonder how much hate I'll get for that.

Big Hero 6. Hiro Hamada and the rest. No musical numbers, but it does have Baymax and jokes about puberty, which are...funny I guess. I guess. It does have a twist villain, but that's a gimme. He's a supervillain. Would Norman Osbourn be half the villain without being the father of Peter Parker's best friend? It loses a point because Hiro's older brother was too good to deserve being Uncle Bened. I wish my brother was as cool as Tadashi was. And that he was also Uncle Bened. I'll trade my brother for superpowers. See if I won't.

Final score: B. SO close.

Zootopia. The furry movie. I saw it. It didn't turn me into a furry any more than 90 years of Mickey Mouse did. Maybe I oughta dock it a point for that. Good story, entertaining leads, entertaining side characters. Catchy music. But it had a twist villain. Get some new material, guys.

Final score: B. Almost got it.

Moana. Good movie. Good characters. Good music. Who knew Dwayne Johnson could sing? No twist villain. Actually, there's a twist hero. Double points for that.

Final score: A. Huzzah! We finally got an A!

Coco: Ah, Coco. Good movie. Good music. Good characters. I will dock a point for preventable conflict, but righting former wrongs makes up for it. Very heartwarming. Double points for heartwarming. Also, another M. Rivera journeys to the Land of the Dead in search of his ancestors. And Imelda is voiced by the same actress that did Manny Rivera. I wonder if that was intentional.

Final score: A.

Incredibles 2. The first Incredibles missed the cutoff. Oops. It's a sequel so...ehhhhh. Another twist villain, but it's a supervillain so normally it wouldn't count, but the villain has no personal connection to Helen and only second-hand connection to Bob, so fuck Screenslaver. Overall, doesn't really stand out.

Final score: D. Ehhhhhhhhhh...

Live Action Aladdin. An acquaintance of mine she got super thirsty over Mena Massoud, so I'll give him double points. Will Smith did...ok I guess. I guess. I liked Jasmine's new song tho.

Final score. Ehhhhhhh...I wanna give it a good score, but I really can't give it better than a C. I'm sorry Mena and Naomi! Forgive meeeeeeeeeeee!

Live Action The Lion King. Yeah...no...

Final score: F. Not even Beyonce could save it. I think I may have committed a crime against humanity by saying that...

Frozen II. A sequel...ehhhhh...good story I guess. I guess. Good music, I will concede. New characters are forgettable and Elsa didn't get a girlfriend. I don't think it had a real conflict? Question mark? Just righting past wrongs wasn't it? I forget. Assuming there were no villains, because otherwise I'd have to dock a point for forgettable villains.

Final score: C. +2 -1. Hey at least it's not an F. I wonder how much hate I'll get for rating the sequel higher.

Onward. Troll brothers, one's a nerd, the other's a slacker. It's actually quite good. Don't remember the music, so it doesn't get any points. It had a "token acknowledgement of a gay character that can be easily edited out for international" so that's a minus.

Final score:

Luca. Another good movie. Very heartwarming. There is some debate over whether this movie counts as "Young boys discovering their sexuality but only in the vaguest possible terms so that it can be easily rewritten for international" or just "Young friends that is only homoerotic if you squint and maybe audiences are reading a little too much into it". And I mean, I could see it. I'm not that good at squinting and I can see it. I'll give you that it's possible. I don't necessarily think it's probable, but I'll take the point anyway because Disney's not dumb, just evil. They knew.

Final score: B.

Ron's Gone Wrong. Being honest, I was totally unaware that this was Disney. I saw the dvd at Wal-Mart and thought it looked cute. Which it is. Very heartwarming friendship. And the kids that the kid wants to be friends with turn out to be good kids and not little shits at all.

Final score: B.

Encanto. Another good one. I have to dock it a point for more preventable conflict, but otherwise, great characters, great music, great story, great ending, great family. Great Scott, have we got another A?

Final score: Yep, it's an A.

Lightyear. Really? This is the movie that Andy saw? But this Buzz acts nothing like that Buzz! Twist villain, token acknowledgement of a gay character that can be easily edited out for international. I mean, I liked it. I like Buzz and I like Alisha and I like Izzy and I like Sox, but is that enough?

Final score: B. -3 +4. I preferred the animated series.

Strange World. Didn't finish it. Stopped halfway and got sidetracked by something else and never got around to picking it back up, but it does have a gay secondary character in the main character's son and I seem to recall he gets a recurring subplot about how fit the guy he likes is.

Final score: Ah heck, let's give it an A just because the gay character wasn't of the "easily edited out for international" variety.

Elemental. Loved this movie. Very heartwarming. I say that a lot. It's Disney. What do you expect? Technically it does have a preventable conflict, but the preventableness is central to the story, so that's a gimme.

Final score: A.

Wish: Bending the rules, because I haven't seen it but I hope to some time soon. I'll be optimistic and wish upon a star that this movie gets all the points.

Final final score: A. Huzzah!

In closing if you don't agree with my ratings, or with the reasons I have given for the ratings, you are, of course, entitled to your own opinions, but I don't want to hear it so find someone else to whinge at.

Please and thank you. :)

[amingethia]

The lion king live-action remake is rough and I don’t love how they changed some songs (They butchered Be Prepared. BUTCHERED IT.)

However I do appreciate that they added a few lines that felt like retconning the story slightly. They smoothed a few things out.

For example, when Scar is intimidating Simba at the end (after accusing him of murder) when he says “Ah I remember where I’ve seen this before… I looked into Mufasa’s eyes… and saw his fear.” Then when he reveals to Simba HE did it, and Simba enraged accuses Scar of murder, I appreciate how in the live action Scar tries to defend himself and his lies. I appreciate that they threw a plot point in to prove to the lionesses that Scar was lying about Mufasa’s death.

Sarabi: “Scar, you said you didn’t get to the gorge on time.”

Scar: “It’s true!”

Sarabi: “Then how did you see the look in Mufasa’s eyes?”

This commences the final battle.

Also they added this line which I believe is absolutely chilling.

Shenzi: “There’s only one true thing you’ve ever said Scar. A hyena’s belly is never full.”

Outright confirming Scar wasn’t just mauled, the hyenas definitely ate him.

[enthusiastofshit]

[artist-issues]

Let’s talk about this Mufasa movie.

No. Let’s not. Let’s just talk about Mufasa. This is going to be long because he’s a really good character and The Lion King is a really good movie.

Mufasa’s whole point, as a character, is to foil Simba. He’ s not just the stereotypical “great dad role model” character, or the “wise mentor who is ripped away” character.

He, as a character, is in the story because he is “Who Simba Really Is.”

Simba is our young protagonist. The whole point of Simba in the story is to start out “not yet grown into who he really is,” so that the story can teach him how to “grow into who he really is.”

So the audience needs to know “who is Simba and who is Simba supposed to be?” right at the beginning. Which is great, because all kids are trying to figure out the same question about themselves. So it’s relatable. But anyway, the storytellers make Mufasa the answer.

On a simple level, you can answer the question, “who is this Simba guy?” right off the bat in the movie with “the son of the King.” There’s the setting. There’s the set-up. There’s the title of the movie. That’s why the very first lion you’re introduced to in the movie is Mufasa, and it’s not a shot of a baby lion cub. It could have been. Lots of movies open with a shot of their main character. Encanto, for one.

Not The Lion King. The Lion King starts with, “you can’t know who Simba is without Mufasa, so Mufasa gets shown first.”

So okay, Mufasa is a King. Good to know. That’s obvious from the big rock he’s standing on and the way all the animals are coming toward him. But from there, they quickly establish a few more things about Mufasa. He smiles at this little bird that bows to him. He hugs the shaman-monkey. He goes from “big solemn lion” to “good and benevolent” immediately.

And then as it goes on, you learn more about Mufasa. He’s not an idiot; he knows Scar is up to no good, and he is very direct about it. He is not a naive dupe, trusting a schemer blindly. It’s more complicated than that. He is a better leader and a better guy than that. Mufasa knows Scar is his brother, and in a snappy little interaction with Zazu, storytellers make it clear that he worries about Scar; he knows he has good reason to worry, but hasn’t decided to give up on his brother.

Additionally, he is merciful to other dark creatures too. He beats the tar out of hyenas but doesn’t kill them. He rescues Zazu from Scar’s mouth. He scolds Simba but he does that, and more, to teach him. So what Mufasa is teaching us, according to what I just showed you the story says, is that A Good King, A Good Man (Lion, whatever) Is:

Authoritative - Makes decrees and makes decisions and yes, tells others what to do. Creates the structure his people live in.

Kind/Humble - Shows the same level of casual friendship to a revered shaman-recluse as he does a little self-important majordomo. (Humble because he’s not afraid to admit when he’s afraid if it’ll help his son.)

Teaches - Takes time out of the day to pass on what he’s learned to someone who is going to take his place—he’s not hoarding his own position or gatekeeping his life-experience-expertise. He’s not finding his identity in how he has this wealth of information that causes people to need him; he gives it away freely, purposefully.

Protects - Is willing to endanger himself and go to the trouble of defending creatures that are weaker than himself.

Shows Mercy - See Scar and the hyenas, who deserve death, but he doesn’t give it to them.

Prioritizes Family - The time he’s taking out of the day is for his son. And he follows up with his recluse of a brother instead of going, “that’s Scar, I know he don’t care about nobody but himself, his loss, not my problem.” And he extends trust to that brother, which is really just an example of gift-giving to a family member who’s done nothing to keep that trust.

Has Faith - Mufasa makes a point of not answering Simba’s question about “Will you always be there for me,” with just himself. He could’ve. Many parents do. Many parents are tempted to, to show their love. “Yes. You’ll always have me. I’ll always be there to answer your questions; I’ll always protect you, I’ll always be what you can count on, you’ll always find a need fulfilled in me.” But Mufasa doesn’t take that bait. He gives Simba an answer that is not “himself-based.” Not selfish. “Look at the stars.” I don’t care what ya’ll say. Mufasa has faith in something outside of himself. He says “and so will I,” but that’s after contextualizing himself within “something bigger than us.” (And oh my gosh, he doesn’t even answer with, “let me give you a lesson you’ll need for your whole life.” He doesn’t even take credit for this faith, for himself. He gives his own father the credit.)

And really, all of those traits can be summarized with the phrase: Lives His Life Sacrificially For Others.

That’s what a leader, a good father, a king, a good man, does. And pay attention: That is what Simba is supposed to be. Simba is supposed to be Mufasa. That’s who Simba really is, that’s where he’s supposed to go. There is a “real you.” But you have to agree with it and accept it, even though your natural bent is to give in to the illusion that you “don’t have to be that, you can choose who you are.”

Yeah, sure, in a sense you can reject Who You Really Are. You can spend your whole life playing pretend, like you’re not That. But you’ll be doing just that: playing pretend. Unfulfilled. Dissatisfied. Running from the misery that is the natural response to your silly game of pretend. Insisting that “there is no misery, this is what I want.”

Okay. Sure it is.

I’ll save Simba for another post.

The point is, Mufasa is a template for who Simba Really Is. Look at those traits. When it’s Simba’s turn to exemplify those traits, does he?

Act I: Is he authoritative? He tells characters what to. And he makes his own decisions—sometimes for good, sometimes bad. For example, he won’t let Zazu deter him from going to the elephant graveyard, so that’s a bad decision, but he does choose to go back and help Nala instead of running to save himself. Authoritative and protective. But it’s all misplaced because he doesn’t “Live His Life Sacrificially For Others.”

Act 2: He’s not. Timon and Pumbaa tell him to do something and he goes along with it. Timon and Pumbaa claim an ancient tradition and his father’s lesson is stupid and Simba goes along with that. He’s no longer making decisions of his own accord, for anything but his own comfort.

The idea is, in Act 1, you see Simba has the same traits as Mufasa, budding inside of him. But they’re all misdirected, and they’re all twisted, because they’re missing one key ingredient: he’s supposed to use those traits in the context of “Live His Life Sacrificially For Others.” Simba doesn’t want to do that. Simba wants to do whatever he wants.

Sure, there’s a part of him that combines that motive with “I want to be like my dad.” But that part dies on the vine and turns sour when his father dies saving him.

So then in Act 2, not only is Simba clinging to “I’m going to live life all my way,” but he’s changed what that means by pushing the nugget of “I want to be like my dad/I WANT TO BE WHO I REALLY AM” completely away. Because it’s too hard, and he’s got shame tangled up in it.

And worse—he starts doing basically the opposite of all of Mufasa’s traits, all of the traits that make him Who He Really Is. He’s not prioritizing family—he’s abandoning them. He’s not protecting others—he runs from the idea of going back to help Nala. (tiny glimmer of it still being inside him because he does try to protect Pumbaa from her.) Kind and humble? No. It’s unkind to tell your best friend you won’t help her because you’re afraid. Humble, no, because humility is thinking of yourself less, not thinking less of yourself.

Ask the question. When Simba’s living in the jungle with Timon and Pumbaa, is he exemplifying any of the traits of Who He Really Is? Or is he doing his best to bury that?

But then after Mufasa reminds him of who he Really Is, and Rafiki shows him how to get his past out of the way so he can accept it, Simba goes back. Into Act 3 we go

Now. Does Simba exemplify Mufasa’s traits? Does Simba start becoming Who He Really Is? There’s not a lot of time left in the movie. Look at the traits, see if he does.

Authoritative? Yep, comes up with the plan to break in and get to Scar, doesn’t back down from the confrontation.

Kind and Humble? Yeah, he willingly admits the truth (he thought it was true) that makes him look bad to give his mom closure. He’s kind to Nala and to Timon and Pumbaa, admits his mistakes, when they come to help him. Hugs the old shaman who cracked him in the skull with a stick—just like Mufasa hugged Rafiki to show us kindness and humility at the beginning of the movie.

Teaches? We don’t really see an opportunity for him to do that yet at this point in the story and his life, give me a break.

But protects? You bet. That’s why he’s there for the confrontation in the first place. Shows mercy?

Yep.

Because he’s not like Scar. He knows who he is. THE POINT.

And when he runs in for the big confrontation, he doesn’t immediately leap on Scar and rip him to pieces. Even though the storytellers make sure to show us he clearly wants to.

Instead, he runs up to his mother to see if she’s all right and show her that he is. And again, he tells her the truth because that’s what she needs even if it’s not what she wants, and he’s learned not to run from what he’s “done.” And faith in something bigger than himself?

Yeah. His father’s voice comes through the clouds just before he decides to roar and claim his title. Through the clouds. Because that whole “we’re a part of something bigger, something more important than ourselves,” was always what he was missing. He was just thinking about himself.

And all of this is because Mufasa is the example of Who Simba Really Is: Lives His Life Sacrificially For Others. That’s Mufasa.

That’s Mufasa, in the story of The Lion King. That’s his purpose as a character, that’s who he is.

So now if you make a movie that’s just about him, what you should be doing is showing how he got there. How he accepted who he Really Is instead of choosing who he wants to be, on his own. And you should make his father, and learning humility, an enormous part of that. Because self-sacrifice is such a pillar of his character. It’s the whole thing.

What you should certainly not be doing is telling a story that ends with finding self-worth or a kid who makes a name for himself. I repeat: if the Mufasa live action movie ends with Mufasa doing anything that revolves around self, they got him wrong and they set him up nonsensically for the next movie.

He should have to decide whether or not he wants to believe his own father, because of that one line, “let me tell you something my father told me.” That shows that he accepted his father’s lesson. And what was his father’s lesson about? Faith. In something BIGGER THAN YOURSELF. So then Mufasa grows up to be a character who lives his life sacrificially for others, and you can trace the roots back to that: “I learned a lesson about something bigger than myself from someone who was not myself, and I humbly believed and accepted that lesson.”

I mean jeez, the line is: “LOOK AT THE STARS.” Whenever you feel alone. Whenever you’re wrapped up in who you are and who you’re not and failure and the idea of what you want to be, knock it off. Quit looking at yourself and look at something bigger than you. And then you’ll get “Understanding of Who You Really Are”—no matter what mistakes you’ve made, no matter how you’ve failed, no matter what your circumstances are—thrown in.

…Of course, the Lion King remake ruined him anyway by having the point be “I’m not worthless.” And that was never the point. But whatever. I’m rambling now. You get the idea.

Mufasa is exactly what he needs to be for the original The Lion King. He’s exactly what he needs to be for Simba’s story. Mufasa is awesome.

[dareduffie]

when will people learn that live-action remakes will never be good as their original animated counterparts because the glory of animation is the colour, movement, and fantasy that's just untranslateable to live-action

[seekingcylem]

another marketing image. sure was a movie i didn’t see.

[pftones3482]

I want to be excited for the live action Little Mermaid so badly

The Little Mermaid is my favorite Disney movie. Anyone who knows me knows I'm obsessed with mermaids as a whole and will watch any media that has them. Hell, I own my own tails and monofins. But every time I see a gif or a video for the new Little Mermaid, I cringe

(btw, this is NOT because of the casting. If you're against this movie because Ariel is black, you're a racist piece of shit and this post isn't for you)

My issue lies with the CGI. It just looks so FAKE. We've seen through the course of movies and TV shows that use it that CGI does not age well, and that's because technology is constantly improving. What was impressive in 2005 is not impressive in 2023 (Just look at Aquamarine, another movie about mermaids). And the CGI on Ariel and her sisters already looks fake and the movie isn't even out yet!

Compare this image from the trailer

To this screenshot from H20: Just Add Water (a TV show that came out in 2006):

You can see the details of the scales in the second image

The first image is flat. Sure, it's colorful, but it's flat. It's fake. Halle herself is the most beautiful and alive part of the image, because everything else is fake

The difference?

H20 had costume designers, ones specifically trained in mermaid tail making, HAND CRAFT every tail on the show. All of the scales were hand laid, all the tails molded to fit the actors/actresses perfectly, painted by hand

Let's even look at someone with no affiliation to TV or movies:

This is Mermaid Linden, a very well known (in the mermaid community) professional mermaid. You can tell her tail is not as high quality as the ones made for H20 (though it's still a VERY expensive tail) - but it still looks like it's a part of her. You can still see the details. Because professional mermaid tails are also all handmade and molded to fit each person. Even if they don't lay every individual scale, good professional mermaid tail makers are very meticulous about what they do.

This is what happens when Disney refuses to pay practical effects artists. We could have had beautiful, handmade tails that would look real on screen for decades to come and could be reused for promotional purposes - instead, they're underpaying and overworking their non-unionized employees to make CGI tails that don't even look real now.

(to be clear, I'm not shitting on the artists. As I said, they're being underpaid and overworked. This is not their fault)

And before anyone comes and says "But swimming in those is difficult!" Absolutely it is. You should never swim in a professional level tail (or even just fabric tails) without practice and training. Which Disney could have given the cast if they were willing to PAY people (the cast of H20 [a TV SHOW] literally learned how to be mermaids on set. It's been done before)

Disney's "Live Action" needs to be rebranded as "CGI with some real people tossed in" because that's all any of these remakes have been, and it's exhausting when I look at what we could have had.

[hjbender]

“Good news! That cartoon show you loved as a kid is set to become the latest live-action movie!”

Kitten, I’ll be honest, Daddy’s about to start killing people.

[youruinedmylifebynotbeingreal]

Inspired by (x)

[therubyfox]

Guys. Guys. Please. Not every adaptation has to be live action, not every adaption can be live-action, because making it so can rob the original IP of its very essence. If making everything look realistic diminishes it to the point where you literally have to animate it anyway to make it recognisable, then why even try to make it live action in the first place? What is so bad about animation that we have to make things live action because it’s otherwise “just for kids”? Why are we ignoring a perfectly good medium only to force a different medium to do what the former was designed to do only much worse?

Some things can only be done by animation, in the same way that some things can only be done by books or musicals or games. That’s what makes adapting things so difficult, and it’s what makes choosing the medium you want to write in so important.