Dig into the reheated leftovers of 'The Lion King,' and you'll feel like a kid again

No Content for Old Men

with Matt Craig

In this week's newsletter: A review of the 25-year update of The Lion King, some comments on Stuber and "Stranger Things 3," plus recommendations for something new, something old, and something to stream in the romantic comedy genre. I've got a "Subscriber Says" on deck and a special DOUBLE "Trailer Watch" for the first peeks at Top Gun: Maverick and Cats.

Word Count: 882 words
Approximate Reading Time: 3 minutes

Lion King

The Circle, The Circle of Intellectual Property

"We eat the antelopes. When we die, our bodies become the grass, and the antelope eat the grass. And so, we are all connected in the great Circle of Life…"

Those are words spoken by James Earl Jones in the 1994 classic, The Lion King. A generation of kids across the world heard those words. Nearly every single one of them. They filled Disney's pockets with just shy of $1 billion in estimated total gross, not accounting for inflation. Those kids grew up. They had children of their own. And 25 years later, their kids heard James Earl Jones say the same exact words in 2019's The Lion King. By the time the sun rises on Monday, Disney will be an estimated $250 million richer. Thus completing the circle, the Circle of Intellectual Property.

In the lead-up to this movie, I was looking over the vast span of Disney original movies across the decades and remembering just how foundational they were to my childhood. To everyone's childhood. I don't just mean as a universally shared experience, though they are the cultural mythology of the modern age. They taught us how the world worked, and the way we should in it--for better and for worse, actually, an entire industry of academia about the latent messaging in these movies has sprung up and will ruin your entire childhood.

Still, it's fair to say that these movies have legitimately made the world a better place. Every movie doesn't have to do that. But the central question that should be asked and answered in the production of a movie, any movie, is a simple one. Why should this movie exist?

More specifically, why does this most recent slate of "live action" Disney remakes exist? In the past five years, we've gotten Cinderella, The Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Dumbo, Aladdin, and The Lion King, with the confirmation of at least four more confirmed to come in the near future: Mulan, Lady and the Tramp, The Sword in the Stone, and The Little Mermaid. The answer is obvious. To make more money. Duh.

Disney's rebuttal has been that they are bringing the timeless tales to life in "live action." But the whole concept of "live action" is false. The new movies are photorealistic, sure, but they are just as animated as their predecessors. Just because the originals were animated with paper and pencil and the remakes are animated by fancy computers does not changed the fact that The Lion King is 100% animated in both forms. As I mentioned in a newsletter a few weeks ago, Aladdin was easily 80% CGI as well.

What then? You're slapping a fresh coat of digital paint on the same exact animated film a few decades later? Yeah, basically. Why wouldn't you, when the strategy is a cash cow. The new Beauty and the Beast made $1.2 billion worldwide, The Jungle Book $966 million, Aladdin $965 million and climbing. These are movies that you can take your kids to, while simultaneously reliving your own childhood. True four-quadrant marketing.

As long as we're talking about nostalgia, here's a blast from the past. Remember when you would go buy blank CD's and burn your own mixes? The generation before did the same with cassette tapes. Once you made a copy, it was identifiably the same song, but something about it was...lesser. It never sounded quite as good. Each time you made a copy of a copy, it got worse.

The same goes for these remakes. Each one is a beat-for-beat, song-for-song recreation of its original, if not shot-for-shot and frame-for-frame in many instances, but they all ring with the hollow tinniness of a copy.

It's actually a fascinating phenomenon. Because if Disney were to re-release the original version of The Lion King in theaters this weekend, a version that every single person acknowledges is superior, I doubt people would be flocking to their nearest theater in droves to go see it. It hits the same pleasure centers, produces the same nostalgia, and appeals to the same four quadrants. But just like a live sporting event that you record on your DVR and go back to later to watch, it fails to hold your attention.

I suppose that is the intrinsic value of these remakes. Somehow, with a sprinkle of CGI fairy dust, more diverse casting and updated social progressivism, these reheated leftovers can taste unlike the same exact meal we had before. It was obvious in my screening. When the opening "NAAANTS INGONYAMAAAAA" rang out, the whole theater burst into joyous laughter. When the title card came up, applause. When the first notes of "Hakuna Matata" played, the guy next to me held out one arm like an orchestra conductor. At another point a lady a few rows in front of me thrust both arms in the air victoriously.

Disney has convinced us all that a ticket to this movie does not have to signify the expectation for a superior product. It's not about the product at all. A ticket to The Lion King merely a tacit endorsement of childhood. Who wouldn't pay $15 to feel like a child for two hours?

And that's why Disney will soon own everything the light touches.

Subscriber Says

From Valerie in Boone, who happens to be my mother. She gives me subscriber feedback every week, and celebrated a birthday on Thursday. After hearing about the triumph of Toy Story 4, she reminded me of this photograph. I'm not quite sure my brother really had a firm handle on the character of Buzz. Anyway, here were her comments:

"Who would have EVER dreamed that over 20 years ago I should have saved the Buzz and Woody Halloween costumes for future generations? Of course, we were all enchanted by Toy Story back then as it was the first big Pixar experience. And who doesn’t want friends like Buzz and Woody? But in my wildest dreams it never would have occurred to me that the franchise would produce three more of them. Can’t wait to see it!"

In response to last week's Netflix picks:

"What, no Lily James? No Rom-Coms? What kind of a summer would it be without those? While I love the intellectual and emotional engagement of most of your ranked movies, your rankings are lacking appeal for women…….what about a best of rom com category next time????"

Her mention of Lily James shows that she actually reads the newsletter! She's right, though in my defense Netflix has gotten rid of their rom-com library to make room for their original films in that genre. So not entirely my fault. But in honor of her birthday, I'm dedicating the "Something Old" and "Something to Stream" categories exclusively to romantic comedies. Not exactly a sacrifice considering I love rom-coms. But happy birthday Momma Craig!

Something New

Stuber (Theaters): There was nothing actively bad about this comedy two-hander starring Kumail Nanjiani and Dave Bautista. It's just so forgettable. In the current movie landscape, that's worse. It's not exactly this movie's fault that the traditional big studio comedy machine is a rotting corpse, but it's also not injecting it with fresh life. A really catchy premise writes checks the action nor the laughs can cash. Which is unfortunate, if it harms the ability of the talented actors involved in this to land future projects.

Frankenstein's Monster's Monster, Frankenstein (Netflix): Recently I've come to really enjoy comedy in which the audience is never let in on the joke. Such is the case in this bizarre one-off comedy piece starring David Harbour, of "Stranger Things" fame. The facade is a documentary about Harbour's father. The whole thing is presented straight, but every word of it is a farce. If you can buy in, you'll laugh from start to finish. In particular, Harbour's imitation of Orson Welles doing a discount steak commercial absolutely slayed me.

Something Old

My Best Friend's Wedding (1997): Somehow I didn't know this movie existed until this week? Have I been living under a rock, or is this movie really so overshadowed by its 1990s rom-com colleagues that it's slipped through the cracks? It belongs amongst or above all the others. We're talking about prime Julia Roberts getting jealous because handsome Dermot Mulroney, whom she friend-zoned for two decades, got engaged to some other girl. And that girl is a young Cameron Diaz. So prime Julia Roberts has four days to split up the wedding between handsome Dermot Mulroney and young Cameron Diaz. Hijinks and sexual tension ensure. Now that's a sales pitch!

500 Days of Summer (2009): Wednesday marked the 10-year anniversary for my all-time favorite romantic comedy, so its inclusion here feels mandatory. The word "masterpiece" doesn't do justice to this script, which is one of the greatest screenplays ever written, from its ingenious structure down to the little moments of brilliant comedy. Also, fair warning, it's heart-wrenching. "This is a story of boy meets girl, but you should know upfront, this is not a love story," the narrator says in the opening scene. And he's right. I mean it'll really hit ya in the feels like a two-by-four. Even last night, when I was rewatching the movie for the umpteenth time, I was biting my lip and scrunching my face toward the end. I could watch it a million more times. Who am I kidding, I probably will.

Something to Stream

Lars and the Real Girl (Amazon Prime): This is a public service announcement to all the streamers out there: Amazon Prime's library of movies to stream is way way WAY better than the Netflix library. If I were to make a top 25 of movies on both platforms, Amazon might have like 20 spots, and it runs way deeper too. Here's a largely overlooked entry into the romantic comedy genre, never talked about within Ryan Gosling's illustrious career. He plays a delusional young man who tricks himself into believing a sex doll to be his real life girlfriend due to social anxiety. In like 20 years when everyone has their own sex robot, something tells me this movie is going to have a resurgence. Get ahead of the curve.

Notting Hill (HBO): My first three selections are, admittedly, more rom-dram than rom-com. I needed to add at least one warm, fuzzy classic to the list. You've probably seen this ol' chestnut, but the talk of Julia Roberts got me thinking. Is she THE rom-com protagonist queen? Pretty Woman, Notting Hill, Runaway Bride, and on and on...Or is it Meg Ryan? When Harry Met Sally, You've Got Mail, Sleepless in Seattle...Either way, the undisputed king is Hugh Grant, who costars in this story about a down-on-his-luck Englishman (aren't they always?) who harbors a glamorous American movie star. Spoiler alert, they fall in love.

Trailer Watch: Top Gun: Maverick

It's been 33 years since the original Top Gun was released, which means we've lived through 32 years of rumors about a sequel. On Thursday, we finally got our first look at the much more...experienced...Maverick. The trailer basically just two minutes of us watching Tom Cruise fly jets, ride motorcycles and act like he's not 57 years old. It's Tom Cruise's favorite past time, and according to box office receipts, watching it is one of ours. Showing almost exclusively Cruise was a notable decision because this movie also features newcomers Jennifer Connelly, Jon Hamm, Miles Teller, and Glenn Powell, as well as Val Kilmer and Ed Harris from the original.

At this point I have real REAL questions about whether this is going to be a good movie, but make no mistake, it will be a world-conquering blockbuster. A megahit that doesn't involve capes or "live action" animation? That's a win in my book. Even if the trailer did premiere at...Comic-Con.

Trailer Watch: Cats

Woo boy. Let me tell you, they are really going for it with this one. The director of the most recent Les Miserables, Tom Hooper, is back with an even more ambitious Broadway adaptation. It has giant sets, giant stars, and most controversially, a giant CGI budget. All of the characters have been furr-itized and people are not happy about it. I'm reserving judgement for now, because once you catch your breath from laughing so hard the first time you see them, you'll notice just an absolutely jaw-dropping cast list. The difference between this remake and The Lion King, both of which are faithful adaptations of their original source material, is that I and most others have not seen the Broadway show and are unfamiliar with what to expect. It's a big swing. If it succeeds, the Oscar field is wide open. If it fails, it will epically fail.