Talk:The Lion King (2019 film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:26, 29 May 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Lion King (2019 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Africa Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animals in media (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animals in media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Animals in mediaWikipedia:WikiProject Animals in mediaTemplate:WikiProject Animals in mediaAnimals in media

Animation: American / Films / Computer Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Computer animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Disney Low‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American / Animated

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

Beyoncé Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beyoncé, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Beyoncé on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BeyoncéWikipedia:WikiProject BeyoncéTemplate:WikiProject BeyoncéBeyoncé
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Animation / Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Animation portal This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2019, when it received 10,116,250 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 5 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Archives

Archive 1

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

Done That was added here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. 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 | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 17:26, 29 May 2024 edit Erik (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 100,464 edits →End this "Live-Action" Madness: Reply Tag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:26, 29 May 2024 edit undo Erik (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 100,464 edits →End this "Live-Action" Madness: added Next edit →
Line 40:		Line 40:
	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? [[User:TonyZangrand\|TonyZangrand]] ([[User talk:TonyZangrand\|talk]]) 16:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)		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? [[User:TonyZangrand\|TonyZangrand]] ([[User talk: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. We should look to secondary sources that are independent of the entities that made the film. 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? [[User:Erik\|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Erik\|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to\|ping me]])</sup> 17:26, 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. 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? [[User:Erik\|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Erik\|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to\|ping me]])</sup> 17:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)