My Non-Review of The Lion King (2019)

     I'm not going to see The Lion King remake in theaters. I've had my mind made up about this for some time. I may or may not check it out when it is released on home video and streaming but I have no interest in supporting its theatrical run. As I have quite liked some (though not all) of the Disney live-action remakes, I felt the need to address this on my blog.

     First of all I have made an informal resolution to watch less Disney films in theaters. There are many reasons for this including the studio's promotion of abortion and other left-wing causes that I find distasteful (to put it mildly) but the main reason is that the corporation (calling it a studio is no longer really adequate) has gained an increasingly dangerous amount of monopolistic control over Hollywood in the last ten years. The acquisition of 20th Century Fox is what really clinched it for me. While many geeks celebrated what would (eventually) mean the entry of the X-Men and Fantastic Four into the MCU, I looked on in horror as the big six Hollywood studios became the big five. Consequently I have also felt compelled to support other studio releases (especially Warner Brothers) more often, not because they're not monopolies themselves (they are) but because Disney is the biggest and most dangerous at this point, so the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

     With that said I still go to see some Disney films in theaters. Marvel is certainly the biggest exception though I will also probably see whatever their next animated film is out of a (likely misplaced) sense of loyalty for what the studio used to be. But I skipped Mary Poppins Returns and have thus far avoided seeing Toy Story 4 and Spider-Man: Homecoming (my younger siblings will probably drag me to one or both eventually).

     So what is it about The Lion King in particular that impels me to give it a pass? Well, for one thing, I have a lot of affection for the original film (despite not having grown up with it) and I respect how formative it was for many who saw it at a young age. I also resent the cloying appeals to nostalgia that have become so commonplace in Hollywood today. Then there's the fact that, as their are no human characters in The Lion King, a "live-action" remake would really be a CGI remake and, unlike Cinderella or The Jungle Book, which were based on source material that could be further drawn from, The Lion King is a wholly original film. This, along with it's iconic status, seemed to make it likely that the film would be highly unoriginal.

One of these shots has atmospheric lighting, dynamic camera angles and
expressive facial animation. The other ... does not.

     All of this made me wary of the film from the moment it was announced. I held out a certain amount of hope because of the involvement of Jon Favreau who, in my opinion, did an excellent job with The Jungle Book. Perhaps this remake would resemble that film as opposed to Beauty and the Beast, which was essentially a shot-for-shot remake. But the release of the trailer made it pretty clear that this would not be the case. Then there was the Rotten Tomatoes video which compared the visuals of the trailer with shots from the original film showing "how much animation has evolved in the last 25 years" despite the fact that 1) hand-drawn animation and CGI are not remotely comparable and 2) it only served to highlight how bland and expressionless the new film looks in comparison to the original. This was the moment, I think, that I decided I was not going to see the film.

     Now, some might argue that there is nothing wrong with revisiting a beloved story with some new gloss. After all, tribute bands have been a thing for years and popular theatrical plays are revived time and time again. The difference is that plays and concerts are fleeting things. They exist only for the short moment in time that you are watching them. That some might want to recapture such moments is only natural. But film is a different thing. Like books they exist perpetually (as long as they are properly preserved) and, with all the benefits of modern home video technology, one can revisit them at any time. Because of this it seems rather pointless to remake a film that many people consider a peerless classic. If people want to see it on the big screen why not just re-release it? The 25th anniversary of the original release would have been a perfect opportunity to do this and indeed the studio did so two years ago to coincide with the film's 4k release.

     Of course the answer to all of these questions is rather obvious: money. Movie studios have long operated under the conviction that re-releasing a classic film (except in a very limited venue) was a waste of time unless something new was tacked on, whether that was new footage, 3D or updated special effects. Perhaps this explains, in part, why I'm spending more and more of my theater-going expenses on Fathom Events and other classic film series, as if in silent protest to this trend.

     In many ways this is all a natural consequence of my growing disdain for modern Hollywood. Gone are the days when big studios produced films with modest budgets for niche audiences (or even one as broad as a "family"). Now studio's feel the need to pander to the widest audience possible by appealing to nostalgia and vulgar brand recognition. It's hard to argue against this strategy as it has clearly paid off for the major studios but I no longer want to be a part of that equation. Perhaps instead I'll revisit the original film on Blu-Ray. I would invite my readers to do the same.