Over the past couple weeks you may have
seen the phrase 'Uncanny Valley' thrown around a lot more than usual. I wonder
why that is... (Simba singing Hakuna Matata). The biggest piece of criticism for the Lion King remake aside
from why is this happening? and who asked for this? Is closely tied to this term. so
that's what I'm gonna talk about in this video. Now it's funny because the second
I started writing this, they released the trailer to the movie musical Cats which
is truly on a whole other extreme level of Uncanny Valley, to the point where it
seems kind of ridiculous for me to make The Lion King the focus of this video,
when it is nowhere near as guilty of - well - this. However, I don't discuss movies I haven't
seen yet so remind me to make a part 2 of this video at the end of the year
when Cats comes out. In 1970, Japanese roboticist Marsahiro hero Mori published an article with the hypothesis that as robots are given more human features, they
appear more familiar to us. That is up until a certain point is reached where
the mix of extreme likeness, but also subtle differences and imperfections,
invokes a negative reaction within us. Because at this point it starts to look
eerie, unnatural, strange - uncanny. This is the Uncanny Valley and the observation
led him to believe that roboticists should not attempt to make their
creations overly lifelike in appearance and motion. This feeling doesn't just
apply to robots, if you've ever been weirded out by certain dolls or clowns,
it's likely the same thing. And when it comes to film, it's with how the
character is designed. It's not always a bad thing. In fact many times, particularly with horror and sci-fi, they can deliberately
make the characters appear this way because making us uncomfortable is the
exact response they're seeking. The people involved with Ex Machina designed
Ava specifically to invoke an Uncanny Valley feeling. Your stereotypical robot
movements like that of C-3PO don't invoke this because they are so far off
from how humans move. With Ava, Alicia Vikander made her movements so smooth
and lifelike while also making sure that there is something off about it. So that
she sits in this zone. On the other hand, sometimes it is not at all intentional
and is instead a result of poor character design, bad costuming or
horrible CGI. The Sonic the Hedgehog movie being one of the best most recent
examples of this. Where a human-like body shape covered in blue fur with human
teeth and creepy eyes created such a negative reaction that the movie, which
was supposed to come out this year, has been postponed to 2020 so that they can
redesign Sonic. So where does The Lion King fit into this? This isn't a Cats
situation where Donald Glover and Beyonce are acting it out and digital fur
technology (DIGITAL FUR TECHNOLOGY) is added onto their bodies. The characters are
just impeccably done CGI lions that look exactly like real lions. When the first
trailer dropped, no one mentioned anything weird or an cranny about it. Tt
was stunning - but when we eventually did get to see short clips of the lions
speaking - Nala: "Seeing you again, you don't know what this will mean to everyone!"
Something felt really off about it. The mix of hyper-realistic animals that
aren't emoting and human voices that are emoting, takes it into Uncanny Valley
territory. Of course not everyone feels this way, I'm sure many don't care and
aren't fazed by this. But for me and many others, it was a pretty big hindrance to
the movie - and I'll explain why. I by no means hated this remake, I wholeheartedly
believe that the creatives involved in making it
cared about the story and wanted to do justice to the original. That being said,
what should have been the best scenes in the movie fell flat for me mostly
because of this uncanny valley problem. And it is directly a result of
decisions they made that could have been avoided. For a movie that looks so
lifelike, it also feels like the life has been sucked out of it. This is most
apparent with the scenes that should evoke the most emotion. Take the Stampede
for example, the shot of the wildebeest running into the gorge looked just as
realistic and incredible as I hoped it would. But it's not just the image of a
lion cub and his dad trying to survive amongst a giant herd of wildebeest that
makes the animated version one of the most emotional scenes in any Disney
movie, it's carried on what these characters are feeling. Which is told
obviously through the expressions on the characters faces. The panic in Simba's
face when he can't find his dad, the relief when he thinks he survived and
the horror at seeing him fall. The sinister look when scar says - Scar: "Long Live The King." The look of sheer terror in mufasa's
eyes at the realization of what his own brother is about to do to him, these are
all vital in making the scene what it is. Yet
these expressions are non-existent in the remake. Scar just delivers the line
with so much less drama then smacks Mufasa in the face and he falls off. I
really wish I had the scene on hand so I can contrast the two in this video. Interviewer: "The Stampede, I mean that's upsetting enough in the Disney version isn't it? When did you
first kind of see that coming together and are you slightly concerned it's
gonna scar a whole new generation of children?" Chiwitel: "It's such a strange thing in that in a way
because I feel like the animated version for some reason is kind of so
visceral. Whereas, in a way, you know, there's something slightly more subtle
about it I think slightly gentler for that reason actually. In this
in this version that, it's not quite as as I suppose, brutal in a way." Even though
I'm sure Chiwitel meant that in a good way, I completely agree with what he said
there.. but in a bad way. This version of the movie feeling less
visceral is exactly my problem with it. The father-son relationship that was
brutally cut short is the emotional core of the movie and when that emotion is
not shown in the faces of the characters, it feels very bland.
It's then made worse when the voice acting is added on top of that because
this is of course a very talented list of actors who did deliver with their
performances, but it's strange hearing these performances overlaid on animals
not showing the same level of emotion. When Simba is crying over the death of
his father, you can hear the devastation in his voice, but what you're seeing is
just a lion cub that isn't portraying that on its face. There is a big
disconnect between the two. Compared with the animation where the visual matches
exactly what you're hearing. Simba "He tried to save me. It was an accident, I didn't mean for it to happen". This isn't the case with
all characters - like I don't feel this way about Timon who is easily the
highlight of the film for me. Pumbaa too. I think partly what really helps in this
case is meerkats are just as funny in real life as they are in animation, given
their size and overall nature. Like there's a moment where they show a
close-up of Timon's face and everyone laughed, not necessarily because he was
doing anything funny but just looking at him is funny enough. Adding Billy Eichner
on top of a little animal that's scurrying all over the place is perfect casting
and worked really well. The uncanny valley problem also wasn't there
throughout the movie, I did get used to it at several points. I thought I'd be a
lot more bothered with Zazu's beak just moving up and down as he speaks but it
wasn't that bad. However, the points where it bothered me with the lions and
where it was most noticeable, was unfortunately always during what should
have been the most emotional scenes in the movie. People's snarky response in
defense of the movie, tends to be "Well what do you expect? Lions can't emote."
Which i think is a cop-out. This isn't a documentary and it isn't something like
Homeward Bound where real animals are being filmed. This is CGI, if they wanted
them to emote they could have easily done that and still make the lions look
real. We've seen a ton of CGI animals in movies that show real emotion, Paddington
being my favorite example of this. Despite him being a walking talking bear
that looks really realistic, there's nothing weird about seeing him speak
because his facial expressions match exactly what he's saying and how he's
feeling. Real-life bears can't emote the way Paddington does but that doesn't
make Paddington any less believable as a bear. And it doesn't make the CGI any
less impressive, it makes it more so. I really wish they went in a similar
direction but they didn't and it must have been a conscious decision not to.
which brings me to what I think is the crux of the problem and that is their
commitment to photorealism went way overboard. I get it, this is a remake. They
are already copying so much directly from the animation that if Jon Favreau
wanted his movie to feel special and stand out, making it look like you're
genuinely watching the African savannah is what they had to do. And I'm not
arguing against that part of it. There were scenes in this that looked so real
and so stunning that it literally made my jaw drop. Especially seeing the night
sky completely covered in stars. I loved that.
and sometimes this commitment to realism made them get creative.
Like sure we didn't get to see Timon dress and drag and do the hula, but the
alternative of him singing 'Be Our Guest' was just as funny and caught me by
surprise. Or like in the original, how Rafiki finds out Simba is alive is just
through a bunch of leaves traveling from Simba to him and then he does some
voodoo stuff. In the remake, I really like how we went through a little journey
seeing a piece of Simba's mane travel from bird, to tree, to giraffe, to dung
beetle, to ant, then to Rafiki. You get to experience much more of the animal
kingdom and details of the landscape in this version and I like that. But when I
say they overly committed to this idea of photorealism, I obviously don't mean
that I hate how great the CGI is and how realistic it all looks. It's that this
commitment prevented them from straying outside that box and having fun with the
movie. There's a quote from the indieWIRE review that perfectly explains how I
feel. "The Lion King demands that we suspend our disbelief at the same time
that it tries to convince us that we don't have to, and the resulting
dissonance is so draining that it becomes hard to remember how special
this story once felt." They didn't have to do it like this. This is a movie with
talking animals and musical numbers. They needed to give themselves room to stray
from photorealism during the scenes that needed it most.
Doing so wouldn't make the CGI any less impressive, and it wouldn't make it
less stunning. Letting the animals show the emotion that the voice acting
demands would eliminate this uncanny valley feeling. Letting the characters and
landscape do more than just run around during the musical numbers would inject
life into this movie that was desperately needed. In the original, when
'I Just Can't Wait to be King' is sung, it's not just that it's a great catchy song
which makes the scene. It's also the animation style that changes and you're
plunged into a colorful world with surreal visuals that goes perfectly with
the song. You get taken into Simba and Nala's mischievous and childlike world
that is really fun to watch. Whereas in the remake, they just run around the
watering hole. And something I kept thinking, aside from how boring it was,
was all the wasted potential. It also made me think of Mary Poppins Returns. If
you haven't seen it, there is one scene or section in the movie in particular
that gets a lot of praise from people - even those that didn't like
movie. And that is when the children were taken into a world of a ceramic bowl. The
integration of 2D animation among the live-action was incredible and so
impressive. It doesn't take you out of the movie, it does the opposite. It
becomes so much more immersive. I'm not necessarily saying that I wanted them to
do exactly the same thing here but it just shows the world of possibilities
they had in making the musical numbers creative and interesting. They didn't
even let themselves change it up for just a single song, the song about a kid
fantasizing about the day he gets to be king. The same applies for 'Can You Feel
the Love Tonight'. In the original, that whole scene takes place during sunset
and twilight - because you know, it's literally in the title of the song.
Whereas in the remake, it takes place during the afternoon and the setting is
isn't anywhere near as beautiful or romantic as it should be. Simba and Nala are
again just running around the place not doing much else.
No cheeky smiles, no cheeky close-up looks, because they insisted on it
looking like we're watching an episode of Planet Earth. I thought for sure we'd
at least got to see them tackle each other into the river and get to see what
their fur looks like in a different state - like King Paddington gets all the
time - but nope, it's just a very boring scene because they boxed themselves in with
always choosing photorealism over anything even slightly more interesting.
To end this video, I'll talk about the character that I think was most
negatively impacted by this unnecessary obligation to photorealism, and that is
Scar. What makes scar such a great villain is
not just that he killed his own brother, it's his personality and how
over-the-top he is. Mufasa: Sarabi and I didn't see you at the presentation of Simba." Scar: "That was today? Oh I feel simply awful." But
because of their duty to having it look so real, his personality had to be toned
down significantly. This isn't a knock on Chiwitel Ejiofor
who was really good in the role, and it's not at all his fault. It's the fault of
photorealism, they can't have him sing 'Be Prepared' with the same sort of
flamboyant nature of the original because as established, they don't want
the lions to be expressive. So overlaying an extremely expressive song over an
expressionless lion would make the uncanny valley problem so much worse. The
result is a villain that is stripped of all that chaotic evil energy and we're
instead left with one that just has a single emotion - anger.
In conclusion, I do really admire the technological achievements of the Lion
King remake, I have loved the original for literally all my life. It came out
before I was born and I've lost count of how many times have seen it. And even
though I would much rather they leave the original to stand on its own ,if
there had to be a remake I'm glad it wasn't a complete and total disaster, and
that it had some redeeming qualities. But the movie still has major problems that
prevent me from giving this a high rating, and what's most disappointing
about it is that these aren't accidents, the problems are a result of decisions
they made, and had they just given themselves the space to experiment
beyond photorealism - particularly with making expressive yet realistic animals,
I think this remake could be a million times better. Thanks for watching this
video I hope you enjoyed it, please thumbs up if you did and subscribe if
you're new here. Follow me on Twitter if you want to keep up to date with my
opinions and what I'm working on. Again, thanks for watching bye. :) Sonic: "Meow."
The Uncanny valley is a myth made up by pretentious internet critics. When I saw Rouge One not one person in the theater was anything less then utterly impressed by both Tarkin and Leia.