Talk:The Lion King (2019 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ejiofor confirmed?

THR, in their report announcing Woodard's casting, also says, "...in the feature, which recently added Chiwetel Ejiofor to its roster to play the villain, Scar." The source is already used to denote Woodard's casting, can it be used to confirm Ejiofor's casting? But the Ejiofor text links to an older article announcing he is in talks. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Brojam, what is your opinion on this? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

All sources still say that he is "in talks to play" so best to wait for an official announcement. Also, the text in the article "Chiwetel Ejiofor to its roster to play the villain, Scar" links to [1], which clearly states that he's simply in talks. - Brojam (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced information.

Some Transformers fan is adding unsourced information about actors from Transformers being in the film. This has got to stop immediately. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2017

Change 'animated' to 'live-action' in the first line of the description. 2001:4898:80E8:7:0:0:0:15A (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

With no humans, and presumably motion-capture based CG animation for the animals, its not clear what part of this movie will be live-action. 38.110.71.188 (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be changed back to "animated" since the characters and the backgrounds will be computer-generated. Christianster94 (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It has been inaccurately described as 'live-action' in the media, given the recent trend of remakes. But this label has not been used by Disney themselves. The term 'photo-realistic animation' would suit better, to help distinguish it from the 1994 film. AnAngryAnimator (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've removed any mentions of "live-action" from this article since it would be hard for the makers to tame real lions and make them act properly. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Thank you. I think I should do the same for The Lion King article, as well. Christianster94 (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

New Hyenas or rename?

In the "Casting" section, it says: "Other stars Eric Andre, Florence Kasumba, Keegan-Michael Key will be the voices of Azizi, Shenzi and Kamari while JD McCrary and Shahadi Wright Joseph will be the voices of young Simba and young Nala, respectively." "Azizi, Shenzi and Kamari" links to "Shenzi, Banzai, and Ed" in a separate article, "List of Lion King Characters". Are Azizi and Kamari renamed versions of Banzai and Ed? Or are they new characters. I ask because no explanations is given on them in any article. Thanks Luca Ittimani (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, for some reason, they felt the need to rename Banzai and Ed. The reason given was them not having Swahili names, even though "banzai" is in fact a Swahili word. Strangely enough, they felt no need to change Nala's name despite it being of Arabic origin and adapted into West African language, nor Timon's despite it being Greek. 24.146.39.54 (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Where's "Be Prepared"?

Where's the song "Be Prepared"?

Hasn't been confirmed yet -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 19:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Released on Disney Streaming Services or on theaters?

This remake film could be released on Disney Streaming Services or on theaters?

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2018

change genre to fantasy musical 78.146.142.108 (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 03:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

Please add Category:2019 computer-animated films to the bottom of the article. The computer-animated nature of this film is referenced a few times in this article. 83.248.186.87 (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

it's a computer animated film, call it as such. photorealistic cg does NOT equal live action. 82.19.214.135 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. That said, § Development currently says "Although the media reported The Lion King to be a live-action film, it actually utilizes photorealistic computer-generated animation. Disney also did not describe it as live-action, only stating it would follow the "technologically groundbreaking" approach of The Jungle Book." ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Synopsis

Here is the official synopsis. https://disney.co.uk/movies/the-lion-king-2019 I don't have the time right now to properly add this to the page. Can somebody do that, please? Gistech (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Shot-for-shot

I have always seen topics such as this one covered under at least a subheading. Now, it is an "unnecessary sole subheader". How and why? Sebastian James (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sebastian James and Songwaters: This is sourced and was an observation based on people seeing the trailer that was refuted by the production team. Two issues about this chunk of data, where does it belong in the article and if it is important enough to be called out with a section header. In my opinion, it is interesting information and belongs in the article. I don't think it is a marketing issue and pertains more to production even if the observation was based on someone viewing the trailer. As part of the production section is would be appropriate to have its own subsection to separate it from the other subsections in that section. As part of the marketing section it would be the one and only subsection that makes it look more important than it actually is as an issue and is inappropriate because it would be the only subsection in the section. I originally moved the info subheader and all to the production section, that was undone and the subheader removed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I personally think it's OK to have in the article, but no evidence has been offered that it's significant enough to warrant its own subsection. Songwaters (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it is not that significant to the film and adding a the sole subheader in the marketing section to just that information gives undo weight to it. If the section had other subsections then it might be appropriate to have a subsection for this. I still don't think this has anything to do with marketing though, and the information better belongs in the production section, where a subheader for the section would be appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The reason I think it belongs in the marketing section is that that section currently consists only of information about the trailer. Since the shot-for-shot info is derived from the reaction to the trailer, I think it makes sense for it share a section with the trailer's success on YouTube. However, even if we put the shot-for-shot info in the production section, I don't see how it would warrant a subheader. This isn't speculation that will stand the test of time, especially after the film is released and people see that is isn't a shot-for-shot remake. I still think it belongs in the article for now, but I don't see the need for it to be its own subsection regardless of where we put it. Songwaters (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Most of the real information is about the film itself, not the trailer. The trailer is what led to the comments but the major interesting information is the response. This has more relevance in the production section as it it information about the whole film, not just the trailer. Subsectioning it in the production section is appropriate as it is a different topic from the other subsections there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but your comment is ridiculous. This information won't be deleted because "[it] isn't speculation that will stand the test of time". The sentence is already written in past tense. Speculation/claim/controversy etc. information is only deleted if it is insignificant/unreliable. Sebastian James (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I was not arguing that information should be deleted, but rather that it was not significant enough to warrant its own subsection. We generally give information their own (sub)section when they are considered to be significant and relevant enough to the subject at hand. The way I see it, this information is a fairly minor piece of trivia that, while interesting, was never a huge topic. To draw a comparison, when Sony Pictures was promoting The Emoji Movie, they released a poster that parodied The Handmaid's Tale, which drew criticism for being tasteless. This is also interesting trivia, but hardly significant enough to deserve a subheader. I'll admit that maybe I could've worded my original argument better, but I still haven't seen any arguments as to why the shot-for-shot speculation is so important to the film that it deserves its own subsection. Songwaters (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It is minor information for the marketing section, beyond not really belonging there in the first place. WP:UNDUE weight to call out something that unimportant to marketing by putting in its own subsection, particularly when there is nothing else in that section with labelled subsections. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

Remove release date from the infobox. Stating the release date in the infobox is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" (emphasis added). It is almost certain that the film will be released. It is not almost certain that it will be released on July 19, 2019. It's not unusual that release dates change. The article indicates the expected release date. That is sufficient for now. Thanks. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: How is it a violation of WP:CRYSTAL in the infobox, but perfectly acceptable in the article? Double-standard much? Listing the sourced release date in the infobox is standard practice (for examples: see Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, Spider-Man: Far From Home, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, etc, etc). NiciVampireHeart 09:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Because the article states; "scheduled to be released on July 19, 2019". The infobox simply says "July 19, 2019". Is there something unclear about the word "scheduled"? No double standard, just more detail to clarify. Another way to fix the problem is to add "scheduled" in the infobox. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film clearly allows for the release date to be added to the infobox for upcoming films. See WP:FilmRelease, specifically "{{Film date}} should be used for the film's release dates, which automatically adds the film to the appropriate release year category (such as 2019 films), and Upcoming films when appropriate" (emphasis mine). As I said previously, it is standard practice to add the release date to the infobox when announced and sourced. See any entry for July at 2019 in film#July–September (which is the time-frame for The Lion King). NiciVampireHeart 10:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I see no mention of "upcoming" films at WP:FilmRelease except to say that if that parameter is used it automatically puts the film in the appropriate category. It doesn't state that unreleased films should be included in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It is amazing how you keep ignoring the second half of my responses. Allow me to re-iterate it. It is standard accepted practice on wikipedia to list the expected release date in the infobox. I am not going to change that on this article, and this article only, because you have decided it is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL.

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. NiciVampireHeart 10:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

And you keep ignoring my statement that the specific date in the infobox violates WP:CRYSTAL. "Standard accepted practice" according to whom? You? I could claim that it's "standard accepted practice" to not include the release date of unreleased films in the infobox. And I don't need consensus to make an edit request. You (and anyone) can choose to ignore the request if you wish. I could tell you to get consensus to determine "standard accepted practice", but that doesn't mean you have to do it. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Accepted practice as per the multiple articles I linked above. Also, common sense tells me if every upcoming film listed at 2019 in film#July–September contains the future release date, then it is an accepted practice. Also, if the infobox is specifically coded so that a date in the future adds the film to Category:Upcoming films and said coding is specifically mentioned at the documentation page for said infobox, then common sense tells me that it is an accepted standard practice.

If there is a disagreement over an edit, it is standard practice to gain WP:CONSENSUS. You appear to be very well versed in wikipedia policies and guidelines, I'm surprised you haven't come across that one yet.

As an aside, I'm pretty sure the trailer containing the release date (see 1:45) is an indicator that it is "almost certain" to occur on that date.

Regardless, I'm not going to close this edit request again, nor am I going to continue discussing it. Have a good evening. NiciVampireHeart 19:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Each and every film listed at 2019 in film scheduled for release in the next three months (and probably quite a bit more, but that's all I checked) includes one or more future release dates in the infobox. Clearly, this is standard practice in Wikipedia articles written about upcoming films and cannot be changed through an edit request. If you believe this violates Wikipedia policy and that the standard practice should change, you'll need to obtain a wider consensus first. I would suggest raising the issue at WT:FILM if you feel that strongly about it. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@NiciVampireHeart: This is more than an issue of seeking consensus for a content dispute. You were instructing me to get consensus before making an edit request, and then unilaterally deciding to close the edit request (three times). That's where you stepped over the line, unless of course you can link for us a policy stating that making an edit request (which anyone is free to ignore) requires consensus. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"The Lion King (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Lion King (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"Live action"

A newish, non-communicative editor, Mohamed saadi rami has repeatedly changed the lead of this article from stating what the sources say (that the film is computer animated) to an unsourced (and, frankly, inexplicable) claim that it is "live action".

They have been notified several times that the edit is problematic and asked to discuss the issue here. If they continue to make this change -- essentially claiming that the animals shown in the film were somehow filmed acting out all of the action in the film -- they will be blocked from editing. (Given some unusual wording in some of their other edits (e.g., [2]), there may be a language issue involved.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0::He continiues to do so.Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

They seem to be having similar problems elsewhere. It's impossible to tell whether they are ignoring, not seeing or not understanding the reverts, this discussion, their talk page and the "wake up" block.

In any case, they're up for another block. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The editor in question has now been indefed, with an open invitation to return if they begin communicating. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems Disney itself is refusing to acknowledge that the film is animated. They've allegedly even gone as far as submitting the film to the Hollywood Foreign Press Association as live action in an attempt for it to not compete against Toy Story 4 and Frozen II for Golden Globe Awards. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

IIRC, the riddle is along the lines of "How many legs would a lamb have if we called its tail a 'leg'?" The answer, of course, is "Four. What we call a thing doesn't change what it is."

It is what it is. The nominations reflect this.[3] - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm in complete agreement. Just speculating on the origin of this nonsense. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The closest thing to a live-action Lion King is likely Roar from 1981. But a number of well-known actors were mauled, and Hollywood has distanced itself from that concept for the most part. - ExtremeSquared (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2019

There are some lines on this page that I think not be seen by public as is has sensitive subjects for people to rather not know Pokemons232013 (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. (You should probably also see WP:NOTCENSORED or WP:SPOILER; I'm not sure if these apply, but it sounds like this is what you're getting at.) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINKING and amateur taxonomy

Articles about cartoon animals (and such) often attract two types of problematic edits.

Overlinking includes a number of behaviors (see The Lion King movie review), but here mostly applies to adding wikilinks to commonly understood terms. The overwhelming majority of English speakers know enough about what a "lion" is to understand the topic of this article without a link to the article, Lion. The link serves no practical purpose, adds visual clutter and generally will not be clicked, ever. It should not be included.

Taxonomy is the branch of biology concerned with identifying organisms. In this case, we're concerned with editors who are absolutely certain that everything about the character points to it being a particular species. Everything about the talking animal conspiring with another species...

Typically, this is adding unsourced original research based on the editor's opinion. In this case, we also get the example of the editor being certain they are right and the film itself is wrong: "a topi (miscredited as an impala)"? No, the only source of any kind on this says it is an impala, so Wikipedia says it is an impala. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The movie should stop being considered an animated movie

The movie doesn't look animated at all Matias2027 (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As Disney was unable to find the various animals who were able to act and read their lines, they turned to computer animation. That it doesn't "look like" other animation doesn't change the fact that it IS animation.

"How many legs would a lamb have if we called it's tail a leg? Four. What we call something doesn't change what it is." - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sequel/prequel

Should the follow-up film be considered a sequel or a prequel? The Hollywood Reporter called it a prequel, but Deadline Hollywood said that it will be The Godfather Part II-style film that will both pick-up where the first film left but at the same time exploring Mufasa's backstory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BestDaysofMusic (talk • contribs) 21:31, September 29, 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a reason this needs to be an "or" question. We can easily say it's been called a prequel, though it has also been described as picking up where the first film left off while also exploring Mufasa's backstory. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources for anyone at Disney explicitly describing this movie as "live-action"?

Hello, I am just visiting from the Awful Movies Wiki. I am intending to add in some reliable sources for an article about this film, and I am curious as to whether anyone at Disney explicitly described the film as "live-action" or not before the film was ever released.

FreezingTNT2 (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

It is wrong about the Lion king having mixed reviews instead of Positive HRahman22 (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 20:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2021

I was looking through the reception section of the film reviews, somehow I noticed someone accidentally made an edit mistake when they added in the review from RogerEbert.com. There’s an additional period next to the review that the original user added in by mistake. Is there any chance someone could remove it?

As shown here on how it should look like when it’s fixed:

"The worst thing you can say about this movie, and perhaps the highest compliment you can pay it, is to say it would be even more dazzling if it told a different story with different animals and the same technology and style—and maybe without songs, because you don't necessarily need them when you have images that sing.". to "The worst thing you can say about this movie, and perhaps the highest compliment you can pay it, is to say it would be even more dazzling if it told a different story with different animals and the same technology and style—and maybe without songs, because you don't necessarily need them when you have images that sing."

That’s all that needs to removed, just that one extra period. 73.61.16.147 (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021

In the "Devolopment" subsection, why is the “BBC wildlife documentary” part is in quotes when the source doesn't actually quote him as saying it, but merely paraphrasing. Doesn't that contravene MOS:QUOTES? —103.163.124.73 (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done

WinterWarp (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@WinterWarp: Thanks much! BTW, should I make a new section for requesting further edits (if and when needed before archival), or..? –103.163.124.73 (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)