The Lion King Remake and Remake: Tell the Same Story on Three Different Mediums
On August 19th, Disney’s latest live-action remake, the Lion King, hit the theater in the United States. Since the original 1994 film is one of the most influential animated films that Disney has ever produced, no wonder this new live-action reimagination grossed $191.8 million over its opening weekend.
Although the photorealistic African safari generated by CGI might bring nostalgia to the audience who grew up with this iconic film, it has trouble satisfying film critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, it only gets an approval rating of 53% based on 334 reviews, which is lower than its precedent Disney remakes, like Aladdin (56%) and Beauty and the Beast (71%).
This rating doesn’t look positive, especially compared to its original film which holds a 93% high approval rating. But aren’t these two films telling the same story? Even lots of the scenes in the new film are shot-for-shot replicates of the original one. Why do those who work well in the animated film not work in the live-action?
Some people would argue the critics may inherently have a hatred for Disney’s remakes since they think those films are repeating the same story and lack creativity. However, there were some other remakes that performed slightly better in terms of critical response.
And the Broadway musical version of The Lion King, which technically was also a remake, was very successful in both box office and critical reviews.
The theater stage version of The Lion King told the same story and adapted the original animation into a brand new medium format. It eventually won the Tony Award of Best Musical in 1998.
So, the same story has been told on three different mediums, animation, film, and theater. But the end results of different versions varied. In this article, I will try to discuss why this particular story can work on one medium but might look awkward on another.
Media Conventions
Every mass media has its conventions. Those would define how information is structured and conveyed via a medium.
For example, almost every newspaper looks the same. They all have the same layout while every article on it goes under a headline with a larger and bolder font. This makes sure when people read the newspaper, they can quickly find what they want and interpret it as the author wants.
When it comes to the three mediums that we want to focus on today, we all know the acting, directing, and set design in each medium are largely different. On the stage, people have to speak louder and move exaggeratedly. However, it might seem overacting if they do so in a live-action film. As for animation, it still keeps a certain level of exaggeration to catch up with the brisk and invigorating style of American cartoons.
When people try to adapt the Lion King from one medium format to another, they must make some proper adjustments to make sure the content fits the media convention.
Animation
Before we go deeper into any adaptations, let’s go back to the original animated film. Most importantly, we need to figure out what is exactly the story of the Lion King.
The Lion King presented a vibrant natural landscape teeming with animals and lives. However, this was never a National Geography documentary. None of the animals in the film behaved in its natural state.
Mufasa is the King of an animal kingdom. Young Simba is a prince who has the responsibility of inheriting the throne. His uncle Scar is an evil villain who plots to overthrow Mufasa. Zazu is a steward while Rafiki is somewhat a shaman.
Just simply look at these words, king, prince, villain, steward, shaman… No animals can actually have those occupations in real life. All of those words are used to describe human only. And the whole story of the Lion King is another rendition of Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
But why did Disney tell a human story through the lens of some animals? Because this is an animation!
When you look at the conventions of animated film productions, you will find the aim of the animated films is never to paint cartoon characters to mimic life as realistic as possible. Because of the unlimited possibility of creating stories on canvas, the animated films, on the contrary, want to try their best to exaggerate the human life and even imagine something impossible.
Let’s see an example in the Lion King (1994):
This was a musical scene of I Just Can’t Wait to Be King. Animals danced and cheered on top of each other while the background color changed vividly. This scene fully exploited the potentials of cartoon and created a sequence of actions which were physically impossible to be recreated in other mediums. It brought lots of joy and worked coherently with the emotion expressed by the musical number.
The reason why Disney used animals to retell Hamlet’s story was that it gave them more potential to animate and fit the taste of the young audience. However, no matter how fancy this was, it was still a story about human civilization after all. Like fables, animals are just metaphors.
Musical Theater
Following the success of the original animated film, Disney decided to bring the Lion King on broadway. They were fully aware that what could work within theater conventions. So, they made several adjustments in the stage version.
The convention of the stage production is to maintain a certain level of realism to help the audience interpret what they’re portraying. But due to the limitation of the theater production, they have to intentionally keep a certain level of abstraction as well. For example, the sword combat on stage is usually like a simplified choreography instead of a more intense real fight.
By the time the audience sits inside the theater, they should already know what they’ll see is a series of scenes filled with glamorous sets, colorful costumes, and mechanically controlled props. They know they are actually fake and won’t have an expectation to see something naturalistic.
So in the stage version of the Lion King, they expanded the humanistic and cultural aspects in the production. Instead of asking the actors to dress up in an animal costume and crawl with their four limbs, they put hollow animal puppets on actors to represent the animal and choreographed dances that mimic animal movements.
Moreover, the puppets and costumes in this production were largely influenced by traditional African arts and patterns. The set design of the show diverts to a more symbolic approach with lots of cultural references.
For the music, the stage version added more African inspired chorus and traditional instruments. They used the typical Broadway method to deal with the musical numbers: group dancing and chorus. This indeed worked pretty well since it was part of the conventions.
Disney knew it can never transplant the naturalistic beauty of African safari onto the theatrical stage. But Disney knew they could bring the cultural beauty of African arts onto the stage.
When you see Simba dressed in tribal patterns standing on the Pride of Rock, you know you not only see a lion but also a young African king rising in power with confidence and pride. This went beyond what a fairytale used to carry and brought a cultural undertone to this story.
This brand new approach retold the story in a way that is drastically different from the original story. It also brought in new perspectives and reinforced the humanistic aspect of the story. I guess that’s why it was highly appraised.
Live-Action
Now we are finally back here to talk about the 2019 live-action film. Apparently, one major media convention for the live-action film is realism. Everything in the film should look as realistic as possible. I think that’s why the horror genre works very well in a film rather than on the stage.
So, here we go, in the new Lion King, they used a naturalistic approach to represent the African safari and the animals living there. Yet, this is what made the whole thing start to look weird.
The original animated version was full of bright and energetic colors. However, in the new live-action, in order to be realistic, everything has to look duller. Even animals don’t look cute anymore.
Another big issue of the live-action film is the lack of emotions. In real life, animals don’t have lots of facial expressions. This is also how they are presented in the live-action. Although the filmmakers successfully captured the detailed body expressions that the animals could make, the audience might not be able to interpret them. Think about how hard it is to understand your cats!
Especially, when it comes to the musical numbers, it gets much worse. Below is a scene from Hakuna Matata. Does Simba really feel happy?
When it’s a musical scene, the animated film brought in imagination. The stage version brought in props and dances. But for the live-action, the realistic style wasn't helpful in terms of bringing emotion and joy into the musical scene. So, it only had a giant lion jumping around with a poker face.
In this way, the audience can’t resonate with the music. Sometimes I was even confused if the songs were coming from the animals since they were not properly inserted within the whole scene. It sounds more like a piece of background music rather than the characters’ conversations or inner thoughts.
Thus, when Beyonce and Donald Glover asked, “Can you feel the love tonight?”
My answer was no. Even if Queen Bee can’t save it!
This is how the naturalistic and realistic approach in the live-action film ruined the Lion King. This approach might work very well in a documentary. But whatsoever, the Lion King is or will always be a story about humans. At least, the lion should know how to smile.
