“It isn’t about creating the most beautiful or authentic looking image.
It is about finding the look that helps you tell a beautiful story.“

The Real before the Fantastical

No one has done more for western animations than the animation devision of Walt Disney Studios. From the original cartoons starring the big ears himself, to their modern CGI animated hits. For almost 100 years now they have been creating iconic stories that are beloved by many generations. Now they are taking the next step in animation by exploring the boundaries of what modern CGI can truly achieve. Becoming the first studio to release a full length photorealistic animated feature film, with this year’s reimagining of the Lion King. Except one shot (check out John' Favreau’s Instagram to see which) the entire movie is digitally created to stunning effects. There are moments without any dialogue where we just see the animals being animals that steal the show. One short sequence where we follow a mouse making its way through the Savana made my jaw drop. Not only do they look like real animals, they behave and move the same too. They even animated behavioral “tics” like cleaning their feathers or scratching themselves. There is no doubt about it, this is the most realistic portrayal of nature in an animated movie ever. But despite all this, when I was watching the movie all I could think was “Should they have done this?”.

I grew up watching and loving the Lion King. It is still in my top 5 movies of all time. Now I was able to relive this incredible story, revamped through the capabilities of modern technology. The movie looks stunning, the trailers got me excited and the cast is incredible. On top of that, Jon Favreau’s last Disney outing, The Jungle Book, was incredible. But while watching the movie I was just disappointed. I didn’t connect to the story or a majority of the films characters. How could this have happened? After rewatching both the original and 2016’s Jungle Book I might have found my answer. It is too realistic.

No Longer a Cartoon

At the start of production the decision was made to make this movie look as close to live action as possible. They stuck to this conviction and you can see the results in creative decisions made throughout the movie. Animals scratch themselves whenever they please, the landscapes look more reminiscent of African plains and Simba doesn’t swim anymore. They’ve put their bet on photorealism and went all in. And you know what, they accomplished that goal. But this movie has a second goal, one shared with every movie made. To tell a story.

To figure out if they accomplished this one as well, I want to look at the consequences of their choice to pursue realism at all cost. With CGI in movies or graphic in games we are primed to believe that the more realistic something is the better. While in many cases this is true it is everything but a golden rule. And the Lion King shows us why. The biggest problem realism has is in the physical performance of the characters, especially in their facial features. The characters’ facial expressions fail to reflect the emotions of the scene, because their realistic features don’t produce recognizable human emotions. They never look really happy or sad, instead they have a look of indifference. Take this shot from the trailer as an example

In this scene, Simba is about to be scolded by his father. He messed up big time and is now scared and ashamed for what he has done. Or at least that is how the scene is written. Because this Simba doesn’t look the part. He seems curious even a little proud. The emotions of the scene and the animated performance are in conflict. Now look at the same shot from the original movie. His shoulders are slumped, his ears low and there is a hesitation in his step. Above all his eyes are expressive and burst with emotions. They say the eyes are the window to the soul. In movies they are the window to the soul of the scene. Are all these features exaggerated? Yes they definitely are. But it is this exaggeration that make us recognize them and in turn allow us to empathize with Simba. He didn’t just do something bad, he disappointed his father.

Exceptions to the rule

How do we know that this was the reason me and others were unable to connect with the movie as a whole? A good start would be to look at characters from the film I was able to connect with. Timon and Pumbaa are by far the characters that stayed the closest to the original movie. They are classic comic relief characters and in this iteration perfectly voiced by Billy Eichner and Set Rogan respectively. But the true stars of this show are the animators. This Meerkat and Warthog ooze personality in the way they move and express themselves. While it never reaches grass skirts hula dancing levels, their movements are the most exaggerated of all the characters. To great comedic effect.

What makes these characters so enjoyable is best shown in their rendition of “The Lion Sleeps Tonight”. For this scene they chose to lean towards the cartoony side of the story. As a result we get an absolutely delightful scene that had me smiling throughout, even surpassing its original counterpart. This scene and these characters capture what the original Lion King was. A family friendly, musical retelling of Hamlet with talking Lions. The premise is inherently fantastical and this scene embraces that. This makes it all the more a shame that the rest of the movie seemed to avoid this fantastical nature, making it feel too serious and lifeless. In Timon and Pumbaa we can see what this movie could have been if they embraced this premise more fully and adjusted the look and feel of the film accordingly.

Remember this is a musical

Wisely Jon Favreau decided not to cut any of the songs and even added new ones. Combine this with the incredible voice cast and the musical lover in me couldn’t wait to play this soundtrack over and over again. The songs are great, the set pieces accompanying them not so much. I would go as far as to say that this movie didn’t feel like a musical at all. Again they stuck to their fundamental rule; to portray realism. So instead of switching to a completely different color palette when the singing starts, the environment remains static. Scar doesn’t ride a geyser of lava, instead simply climbs up a small cliff. You see what I am getting at? The songs are there but they miss that fantastical feel the original had. For some people this was the right call, for me it was the opposite. They might be more realistic but sometimes you want something more than real life. You want that magic Disney touch.

The same thing happened to the character of Scar. In this movie, Scar is a threatening and scary villain who makes a good foil for Simba. But he isn’t really a very memorable villain, being kinda plain in his actions and characteristics. What he is missing is the theatrical nature and constant air of superiority Jeremy Iron’s Scar had. The original Scar was playful and enjoys messing with people. Putting up the performance of the week little brother or the caring uncle. He is the smartest Lion in the room, knows he is and loves using it to make fun of people. He is incredible evil but you can’t help but love him. It’s this combination that made him rise to the top of the Disney villain pantheon.

The Case of Mowgli

Is it possible to strike a balance between photorealistic animation, human emotions and a fantastical touch? I think it is and more importantly it’s been done before by Jon Favreau himself. Hot of the critically acclaimed “Chef”, he delivered an incredible movie that was the start of his exploration of photorealistic animation. 2016’s The Jungle Book. It was this movie (and a clever Timon and Pumbaa nod) that first got people excited about the possibility to see the Lion King done this way. So how do these two movies compare?

CGI-wise they made an incredible leap in quality between from The Jungle Book. The animals already looked incredible but you could definitely see the difference in texture and lighting between them and Mowgli. The biggest difference between the characters in these two movies are the physical performances and facial features I have been going on about. Bagheera, Baloo and Shere Khan all act more like humans that Simba and pals. They hold eye contact when talking and don’t break away to scratch themselves. Their ears lower when sad and their eyes widen when Akela is attacked. Especially the wolf pups can break your heart with their puppy dog eyes.

The performances and the story as a whole are less restricted by realism. They pushed the boundaries of what these animals could do (see Baloo climb a cliff down below). They allowed themselves to be fantastical for the sake of the story. In return they were able to create a retelling of a classic story that was engaging and emotional.

The two movies obviously can’t be compared one to one. The Jungle Book has on paper an easier road ahead of itself. While there are songs in the movie, it has never been a musical. But the biggest advantage going into the movie is Mowgli. As a real man cub he has an easier time becoming the emotional heart of the story. He is resourceful, smart and driven to stay with his friends and family. Making him a great protagonist to root for. Neel Sethi brings out all these elements in his performance. His eyes and body language show us the sadness and pain Mowgli does through during the story. As a result we feel the very same emotions. This is something the new Simba quite frankly was unable to do.

The lesson of the Lion

I don’t want to be a person who just bashes a movie. Especially if they are enjoyed by so many people. 2019’s Lion King is a groundbreaking achievement in CGI and the filmmaking process as a whole. It has multiple delightful scenes that put a smile on your face. It updated and improved on its female characters. Especially making Nala a character who takes more initiative for herself and isn’t just there to fetch Simba.

But the biggest blessings I took from the movie are the lessons it can teach all of us. It shows that we are now able to recreate nature that allow us to tell new stories or improve upon older ones. I couldn’t shake the thought of how awesome a new version of Bambi could be with this tech. Perhaps making it a silent movie. On the other hand it has also shown us that we should use this power wisely and only for the stories that would truly benefit from it. It doesn’t help if you are able to make a picture perfect Lion if you also need the same Lion to sing songs about living a carefree life. Realism shouldn’t be the end goal . of our movies or even the CGI we use. Telling a great story always is and always should be. So if you want to tell a fantastical story, make it also look like one. There is also a cheerful side of this lesson. Showing us that animation and cartoons will always have a place next to live action movies. Just like there will always be a hunger for movies to look unique, groundbreaking and magical.