Could someone explain why we're calling CGI movies "live action" now?

Well, i missed the expressions on the animals faces. The voice-acting was solid, but never really got to me because of the 'stale' animal faces. I didn't want to see 3D models of the originals as seen in this post (because this would make remaking the Lion King even less sense). But i would have liked an artstyle that was different but also used more expressions.

my opinion, i think they should of not remade this movie. long live the classic lion king.

TLK is my favourite Disney movie of all time and I have zero interest in any kind of "live-action" remake. A huge part of the movie's charm are the character design, the bright colours and fantastic backgrounds paired with amazing musical numbers. A realistic version just can't match that. What these re-imaginings of the realistic TLK do show is how little effort was put into making the characters actually emote. Animals are very expressive and it should be easy to convey the emotions of CGI ones. But in all the footage I have seen of the remake the animals look absolutely blank, emotionless and that's just boring. I have no idea what the appeal of this movie is for moviegoers. I can't see even a blink of the original's charm in this cash-grab.

I haven't seen the movie, but it does seem like it would be helpful if it was a little more stylized. It's a whole bunch of lions. They kind of all look very similar

I think that the authir did a really good job combining both disneys versions. I still like the originals better, but it was very good job. Anyway as much as I like TLK I think that it was not the best option for a remake. I really like the idea of the live action movies (specially if they would give them a more serious aproach). But the 'animal' movies dont seem to work so well as remakes. Anyway,I am still very excited to see it.

This is ludicrous. The entire point was that the movie didn't look like a cartoon. These "edits" look worse than the original Sonic the Hedgehog trailer.

I like the original better, the artist did a great job of adding color and giving them a more cartoonish look, but I prefer the original for the live action and glad they made the movie so realist, but it was well done nonetheless!

Some people completely missed the point the artist was trying to make... The point was real animals can never be as expressive as the cartoon version from the original Lion King... which is why this movies was a bad idea.

Lord help us. There are some interesting things on this site, but there is just too much of this kind of - I'm sorry - profoundly stupid nonsense. What part of live action is not understood. Live action is not a cartoon. Cartoons are not live action. Of course I know it's not real live action, but it's being called live action because the level of CGI is high enough to warrant that now. Please people, let's try using some of those big brains we have. We've just got to do better in so many ways. Let's start with something simple.

I hate to say it, but I'm not a fan. They basically just turned the realistic characters back into the cartoon ones. No offense, but what a waste of time.

The whole point of the Lion King remake was it was SUPPOSED to be realistic and non-cartoony. I understand not everyone likes that, but it looks weird with half cartoonish/half realisitic. Like the Scooby Doo movie from 2002.

The artist is very talented, but I don't believe these cutesy, cartoon interpretations are what Disney is going for. The realistic versions have more gravitas. I haven't seen this new version yet so I have nothing to base this on but my hope that this change reflects the dignity of the characters as they're going to have to do something to justify the remake of such a classic.

I don't get it. Just made them all look like the original cartoon. Like the realistic ones much better. I guy does have talent though, I will say.

I’ve seen the new Lion King yesterday, full screen at the cinema. The CGI is very impressive. But sticking so closely to actual animals and their limited abilities to express feelings and moods, their facial expressions do not match their voices. And that, in my opinion, is a missed opportunity. Without becoming the animated characters again, CGI offers the ability to enhance reality. If you let ‘real’ animals talk like humans, then give them also the more suitable expressions. It would make the end result even a better movie.

So what did this artist really do other than keep the cartoon images with the eyes Keane paintings were famous for. I would have been much more impressed if the artist had shown more imagination and reinterpreted the characters. Cartoon has been done. Sequel has been done. Even a stage production with incredible costuming that transformed animals into human form and somehow the two became believable.

This isn't "alternative" they just redrew the cartoon