Talk:The Lion King (2019 film)

English
Conclude the film review analysis with all the key points of the review. 203.99.159.202 (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022
In the section 5.1 "Novelization", the paragraph starts with "Unlike Shakespeare's Hamlet".

I think someone has vandalised this paragraph and those 3 words should be removed. 157.211.1.33 (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ That was added here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Mufasa: The Lion King in production, so should have its own page?
Would the footage shown at D23 not confirm that the film is already in production, and thus, should get a page of its own? giftheck (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's currently being incubated in draftspace at Draft:Mufasa: The Lion King. Per WP:NFF, it should be okay to move the page to the mainspace, but I'll hear what other editors think. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead on reception
In the lead, it mentions lack of originality and facial expressions as key points of criticism. Reading over the reception and summarizing it, I’d argue that the overall shift to realism and a “lack of heart/soul” is mentioned more often, and thus, should be mentioned in the lead. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:9D32:3C8E:7F12:AEFB (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

End this "Live-Action" Madness
I think we should finally address the topic of not being able to correctly classify the film in it's correct medium in the opening paragraph. Yes, Disney's marketing pushed very hard for this film to line with their other live-action remakes, but it would be disingenous to allow that as an argument because, like I've said before, this is just marketing, and branding doesn't change the fact that the TLK remake is still an animated movie (generously speaking, only one shot in the entire film was recorded, which was the first opening sunrise shot, and that's it!), even the box-office figure sources cited inside this article recognise that; so why can't the opening line include it? TonyZangrand (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * First, I removed the note that said, "Disney does not consider the film animated, as it is a 'live-action' remake, even if produced animated. See the 'Box office' section for more info." I strongly question following Disney in categorizing this film. I didn't see a discussion about having this note. We should look to secondary sources that are independent of the entities that made the film, for how they describe it. Secondly, that means we cannot argue from ourselves what the writing should be. Wikipedia follows the world in summarizing coverage, so we should look at how reliable sources have described The Lion King. I do see that the second sentence mentions "photorealistic animated" -- is there due weight for this, and should it be in the first sentence? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is adequately and appropriately described in the second sentence. It isn't described as either live-action or animated in the intro sentence. For complex situations where simple wording in the intro isn't appropriate, and this applies to more than just this situation, a more complete explanation later in the lead is appropriate which is what was done in this article. I see no reason to change the article to put a somewhat contentious descriptive adjective in the intro particularly when it is clear from reading the first paragraph how the film was created. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We need to follow reliable sources and not argue from ourselves what the writing should be. Was that done somewhere in another discussion? We need to properly vet this to see what labels like "photorealistic animated" or other labels exist. If there is enough due weight, a proper label can be in the first sentence. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We can dig into sources, but I think the first two sentences needed fixing anyway to properly place this film's most noteworthy context, being a remake of the 1994 film, in the first sentence. See my essay at WP:FILM1STSENTENCE for how policies and guidelines apply in that regard. If we do that, then we can say "photorealistic animated" to indicate the nature of the remake without actually putting a label between "2019" and "film".
 * "The Lion King is a 2019 American musical drama film that is a photorealistic animated remake of Walt Disney Pictures's traditionally animated 1994 film The Lion King."
 * Thoughts? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see the benefit of merging the first and second sentences into one long intro. WP:FILM1STSENTENCE gives a minimal required list of title, year, genre. Animated is not a genre, it is a creation method, so really isn't required for any film but is usually included as a convention as it usually does impact the appearance of a film. Rest of things are optional and depending on style and how best to present the info should be covered in the first paragraph, not all put in the intro. In this case how the film was made is covered in the second sentence. It could be phrased the same as a separate clause in the first sentence but not as one of the adjective descriptors of the film itself. Disney didn't want to classify it as animated as it doesn't look like an animated film, not because of how they actually made it.
 * Previous discussions about this are in the talk page archives. Significant weight is given to how Disney classified the film including how they presented it to awards organizations. Most people were upset that we didn't call it an animated film. The way it is now is a compromise and nothing is hidden in the article. Putting the "animated" tag in the intro isn't necessary any more than putting a "live action" tag in the intro would be, we don't use either tag as it is contentious. The intro as it stands is accurate with how the film was made left unspecified. The info is completed by the second sentence that doesn't classify the film but does give the how it was made info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I switched the contexts in the first sentence because being based on the 1994 film is the far more noteworthy context than the other elements. Both versions, before and after, were 27 words, so nothing got longer.
 * I get your point about saving explanations for later, and I advocate for that to minimize genre bloat. (I recognize that I said "genre" before, and I corrected myself to say "label".)
 * Live-action films are the default assumption, which is why we don't say that upfront. Same with feature films, these are just "films". However, animated films of all kinds are routinely identified as such across reliable sources writing about them, including for this film.
 * It sounds like you are advocating for following Disney. Are you really doing that? We're supposed to use secondary sources per WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources..." We should be looking at these for guidance, not Disney. Following what Disney says, reeks of WP:PROMO. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that Disney not calling it animated is part of what makes it contentious. We don't need to follow Disney but we don't need to ignore them either. Your proposed intro sentence is a good way to present the info and I have no issues with it. Animated has two meanings, the first is how a film looks, the second is how it is made. How a film looks is a part of how a film is described. How a film is made is supplemental info. If a film is photorealistic and done well it is indistinguishable from a live-action film in how it looks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, while it is said in the later lines, this information about the picture's medium should be displayed at the intro line, just like any other article about an animated feature does. Take for instance the Legend of the Guardians article, which's is a film that is photorealistically animated, and it's still displayed, front and center, as an animated film in it's first line.
 * Also, I seriously would advice you to review that "contensious description" claim of yours, Geraldo. Something isn't less animated just because it's photoreal, otherwise, films like Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, The Polar Express, Disney's A Christmas Carol and Beowulf wouldn't have warranted being classified as such at their intro line. TonyZangrand (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is contentious because Disney didn't want to classify it as animated and spent a lot of effort to not call it that. It doesn't look animated is their reason - if it doesn't look animated they don't consider it animated. Erik's proposed phrasing seems like a reasonable compromise as to how to present the info in the intro sentence if that is desired. Second sentence mention is sufficient to get the into to the readers. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Elephant Graveyard?
The article currently says:
 * On June 14, 2019, Favreau said that, while the original film's main plot points would remain unchanged in the remake, the film would largely diverge from the original version, and hinted that the Elephant Graveyard, the hyenas' lair in the original film, will be replaced by a new location.

Why are we relying on "hints" five years after the movie was actually released? Was the Elephant Graveyard in fact replaced by a new location? And what would be the significance of that, if it was? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)