[ad_1]
Even in the current circle of animated remakes of Disney, Simba arouses a strong emotion.
For years, Hollywood has been remaking beloved clbadics with new digital bells and whistles, embellishing the Grinch with a CGI glow and turning the Mowgli jungle into a pixilated forest. But just a quarter of a century later The Lion King For some generations, new images of a Pride Rock blue screen return are shaking some viewers.
During the Thanksgiving holiday, Disney released the first trailer of next year. Lion King remake – which is negotiating in the original 2D animation of the 1994 original for re-creation CGI – and after more than 224 million views during the first day, the debate was triggered: in what this movie is there a movie "real action" the screen looks like a painted pixel?
Some viewers have tweeted their confusion about the trailer – perhaps waiting for the so-called remake of the movie "The Lion King" to be more in the spirit of the comedy scenario Julie Taymor's Smash Broadway musical.
And the high degree of cinematic similarity has led some users to publish one-on-one comparisons of the original and the remake.
And when Aquaman Director James Wan tweeted his appreciation of the trailer. His use of "live action" has sparked new opinions on what is called Disney's latest reenactment of an iconic property from its golden vault.
In the midst of all this, there seems to be a public need to give a name to these pioneering hybrids in making movies. And the conversation will eventually turn to rewards: how will movie jurors clbadify a creative animal? The Lion King, who should go out in July?
A related debate took place when Avatar was published, and the Visual Effects Society paid tribute to James Cameron's 2009 epic for, among other trophies, "a animated character in an animated feature film". Dean DeBlois, Oscar-nominated screenwriter-director (Mulan, How to train his dragon) told the Washington Post at the time: "Avatar So much has reduced the gap between what the actual action did and what the animation was doing traditionally. He added, "There is nothing you can not do to create a performance. "
Since then, discussions around the vagueness of CGI's "motion capture" and animation have focused on the human being inside the digital skin. Some filmmakers make a distinction when an actor plays a performance that gets a CGI painting job – as often does Andy Serkis – as opposed to a person who is only a model for the hand of l & # 39; facilitator.
Jon Favreau, the director of Lion King remake (which stars Donald Glover, James Earl Jones and Beyonce Knowles-Carter), had naturally traveled this valley before, with its update of The jungle Book. In 2016, the remake of this cartoon clbadic by Favreau was largely based on CGI animation – animals and computer-created landscapes – but the central figure of Neel Sethi as Mowgli Live allowed viewers to enjoy a truly unpainted show.
Now, however, with Favreau creating an entirely animal painting, some viewers seem insensitive to the lack of human face when clbadifying his kingdom.
Rob Legato, The Lion KingThe VFX supervisor from, who also worked on Avatar, told the Hollywood Reporter that he did not consider the remake as an "animated film", because of the way Favreau integrated virtual reality tools – such as the exploration of Cinematographic angles from the point of view of different characters – in the "rules" of traditional filming. (He also said that The jungle Book felt "like a live action movie, although it was shot entirely on a blue screen," wrote THR last year.)
Meanwhile, the Cartoon Brew website disagrees, writing: "Do not let Disney Gaslight you: The Lion King Remake is an animation film. "
In any case, with so many tools in play, it may not be necessary to distinguish the difference between CGI-painted movies and animated movies that use photorealistic effects.
(c) 2018, the Washington Post
(With the exception of the title, this story was not changed by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
[ad_2]
Source link
