Yes, the darling of modern American cinema is getting a Disney picture.

Apparently, Film Twitter isn't embracing this. But Black filmmakers rarely get a chance to work period, much less on a major studio film that's probably going to be Disney's tentpole movie of that season.

If Barry makes Transformers reboots and Todd Phillips produced bro-comedies for the rest of his career, he gave us Moonlight and Beale Street. His legacy is secure off of those movies alone.

I actually think it's a good choice since his movies have a sense of genuineness and sincerity. Two qualities that ought to work in a children's movie.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/29/entertainment/barry-jenkins-lion-king/index.html

i hope it's a remake of the direct-to-video sequel so there can be a critical reevaluation raising it to lofty heights and millennials can claim his adaptation is not as good.


>Yes, the darling of modern American cinema is getting a
>Disney picture.
>
>Apparently, Film Twitter isn't embracing this. But Black
>filmmakers rarely get a chance to work period, much less on a
>major studio film that's probably going to be Disney's
>tentpole movie of that season.

didn't work out so great for ava duvernay post selma.


>If Barry makes Transformers reboots and Todd Phillips produced
>bro-comedies for the rest of his career, he gave us Moonlight
>and Beale Street.

now that is one bizarre trajectory. i see a much straighter line from those to this or for ava from selma to wrinkle.


>His legacy is secure off of those movies
>alone.

yeah, but what about before them? i listened to and even posted a link on here to a great interview with him where he discussed an earlier work that sort of piqued my interest and if i recall correctly was a bit more ordinary albeit ultra low budget. not everything is going to be a grand statement; some are bound to be smaller. that doesn't mean there have to be crass commercial appeals in between. a lot of filmmakers fail that way, but then again, at least they tried (to get this money, am i right?).


>I actually think it's a good choice since his movies have a
>sense of genuineness and sincerity. Two qualities that ought
>to work in a children's movie.

who would even see it with all the cgi?

If I recall from a Deadline article the movie will be related to the OG cartoon but touch on themes from the remake. Kind of a bridge between the cartoon and the remake.

>i hope it's a remake of the direct-to-video sequel so there
>can be a critical reevaluation raising it to lofty heights and
>millennials can claim his adaptation is not as good.

Ha! Right. Film Twitter is never happy or seems to make much sense. An example, I was reading Longo's Twitter feed and apparently, there are young people who put Villenueve up with Scorsese. !!!! Don't get me wrong, I love Denis, but their films are speaking in separate languages. It's kind of impressive that young fans can even conceptualize how the two are similar.

>>Yes, the darling of modern American cinema is getting a
>>Disney picture.
>>
>>Apparently, Film Twitter isn't embracing this. But Black
>>filmmakers rarely get a chance to work period, much less on
>a
>>major studio film that's probably going to be Disney's
>>tentpole movie of that season.
>
>didn't work out so great for ava duvernay post selma.


No, but yes is the way I think of Ava's post-Selma career. Yes, A Wrinkle in Time was disappointing in many people's eyes. She had a lot of resources and came up with a movie that didn't excite. But she doubled down on her core audience and came up with two critically-acclaimed pieces (13th and When they See Us). If nothing else, she extended the window she has to create a breakout hit.

It seems par for the course that women who release movies who struggle get knocked down to work outside of the studio system. So, all things considered I think she's managed well to get out of film-Hell relatively quickly by doing the DC movie that's coming out soon.

Although what little I've read about her after A Wrinkle in Time suggests that she's not as keen on being a 'name' in Hollywood as she was before that movie. She, like a lot of Black women, are just disappointed at the institutionalized narrow mindedness of Hollywood. She seems to be perfectly content to make her smaller-scale movies on her own terms.


I guess the question is what projects were available to Barry and what is his mindset. Moonlight especially and to a lesser degree Beale Street were difficult emotionally on him to make. Maybe he wants to do something lighthearted to reset him emotionally so he can go on to do more challenging work down the line. I don't know. I do think your concern about the studios' lack of support for POC filmmakers is valid. I just think that the opportunity and the potential it has to open doors down the line is worth it. If only for the check.
>
>
>>If Barry makes Transformers reboots and Todd Phillips
>produced
>>bro-comedies for the rest of his career, he gave us
>Moonlight
>>and Beale Street.
>
>now that is one bizarre trajectory. i see a much straighter
>line from those to this or for ava from selma to wrinkle.
>

I should have added a *sarcasm* note because I was speaking in hyperbole about the Transformers and comedy stuff. But he's at a point in his career where he has some measure of agency in his career.

Does he go in a Rian Johnson, Ava direction and focus on making big-budget movies after success making smaller films. Or does he become something similar to late-stage Scorsese where all his movies, even the large ones, still carry his tropes? Or is he like Soderberg where he just floats around in between genres and platforms, just going where his muse carries him?

I'm excited to see where he goes. Of course, he has to make well-regarded stuff but there's nothing in his track record yet to suggest he won't.

>>His legacy is secure off of those movies
>>alone.
>
>yeah, but what about before them? i listened to and even
>posted a link on here to a great interview with him where he
>discussed an earlier work that sort of piqued my interest and
>if i recall correctly was a bit more ordinary albeit ultra low
>budget. not everything is going to be a grand statement; some
>are bound to be smaller. that doesn't mean there have to be
>crass commercial appeals in between. a lot of filmmakers fail
>that way, but then again, at least they tried (to get this
>money, am i right?).

I think you're referring to Medicine for Melancholy. I believe he made that while in film school or not too long after. Haven't seen it but the reviews are fairly positive.

I see where you are coming in with the thoughts that the decision is a money grab. But I don't hold it against filmmakers who make a calculating decision to raise their profile by working on movies overtly geared to bring in audiences at all costs.

In full disclosure, I've never seen the original Lion King and haven't seen the remake. But there's near-universal praise for the storytelling in the cartoon and it was crafted to mint money by bringing in kids and families. So it's not unheard of for commercial films to also have marks of high-quality filmmaking. The Pixar movies are another example as are the Harry Potter films, at least the later ones.

To be fair, I don't take movies as seriously as I did in my twenties and not even in my thirties so I can't get worked up if a filmmaker decides to make a lot of money with a project. To me, it would only damage Jenkins' legacy if the movie wasn't very good.

Also, I get the sense that Barry is a child in the best way. Moonlight and Beale Street showed he has an extraordinary understanding of love and connection and how to portray that on film (or in pixels ;) I think that will serve him well on The Lion King.

Like with most studio projects, it'll come down to the degree of commitment of Disney to Jenkins' vision. But I'm sure he's done his research and ensured to the best of his degree that he can make a film everyone's proud of.


>
>>I actually think it's a good choice since his movies have a
>>sense of genuineness and sincerity. Two qualities that ought
>>to work in a children's movie.
>
>who would even see it with all the cgi?

Ha! Again, I'd say the Pixar movies are an example of kids' movies (and CGI) done right. Having not seen the remake, I can't say to what degree audiences are just expecting too much of the technology or just disappointed CGI didn't have the charm of the cartoon.

>If I recall from a Deadline article the movie will be related
>to the OG cartoon but touch on themes from the remake. Kind of
>a bridge between the cartoon and the remake.

i mean, i'll see it regardless, i was just kidding around. i don't think everything needs a sequel, much less something that was already a straight cgi remake of a 25-year-old animated classic, but if they go that route then it's nice to see a talented director at the helm and certainly on message.


>No, but yes is the way I think of Ava's post-Selma career.
>Yes, A Wrinkle in Time was disappointing in many people's
>eyes. She had a lot of resources and came up with a movie that
>didn't excite. But she doubled down on her core audience and
>came up with two critically-acclaimed pieces (13th and When
>they See Us). If nothing else, she extended the window she has
>to create a breakout hit.

for sure. i was sorry to see she fumbled with the disney opportunity, but it wasn't the end for her by any means.


>Although what little I've read about her after A Wrinkle in
>Time suggests that she's not as keen on being a 'name' in
>Hollywood as she was before that movie. She, like a lot of
>Black women, are just disappointed at the institutionalized
>narrow mindedness of Hollywood. She seems to be perfectly
>content to make her smaller-scale movies on her own terms.

i get the same impression (and count me in on the consistent disappointment in the system). something i enjoyed seeing was her old hip-hop doc, this is the life. i felt like i got a good idea of where she was coming from with it. beyond her talent, she just seems like a cool and down to earth woman. she does make some beautiful films and will continue to do so, especially the more she calls the shots.


>I guess the question is what projects were available to Barry
>and what is his mindset. Moonlight especially and to a lesser
>degree Beale Street were difficult emotionally on him to make.
>Maybe he wants to do something lighthearted to reset him
>emotionally so he can go on to do more challenging work down
>the line. I don't know. I do think your concern about the
>studios' lack of support for POC filmmakers is valid. I just
>think that the opportunity and the potential it has to open
>doors down the line is worth it. If only for the check.

i don't even know if it will be lighthearted (the disney heartstring pulling is deep within me), but it will be above all an opportunity to do something different and almost certainly put a lot of control out of his busy hands. it really is a golden opportunity to cash in on his oscar and critical darling status as well. when he's done, he will probably have a bunch of smaller movies in mind to do, probably for future oscars.


>I should have added a *sarcasm* note because I was speaking in
>hyperbole about the Transformers and comedy stuff. But he's at
>a point in his career where he has some measure of agency in
>his career.

i knew you were kidding. i think it's usually desperate and cynical hack middle and old age when once acclaimed directors go that hard commercial route to try to get back in and pay down their tax debts. if barry never had "it" then we might see him do projects like that, but right now i really do think it is a combination of challenging himself and cashing in.


>Does he go in a Rian Johnson, Ava direction and focus on
>making big-budget movies after success making smaller films.

it's interesting you mention disney director rian because he was kinda sorta done before the SW opportunity. he was a more minute critical darling without the hardware, and even that was drying up. whatever people think of TLJ, he is a name now thanks to that and knives out.


>Or does he become something similar to late-stage Scorsese
>where all his movies, even the large ones, still carry his
>tropes? Or is he like Soderberg where he just floats around in
>between genres and platforms, just going where his muse
>carries him?

could go either or still some other way, but i could most easily see the former. one thing that's struck me about him is how studious he is of his profession and craft, so i think he would be conscious of not getting stuck in one lane (hence this film).


>I think you're referring to Medicine for Melancholy. I believe
>he made that while in film school or not too long after.

yes, that's ringing a bell.


>I see where you are coming in with the thoughts that the
>decision is a money grab. But I don't hold it against
>filmmakers who make a calculating decision to raise their
>profile by working on movies overtly geared to bring in
>audiences at all costs.

the risks are higher. life does require risks, though.


>In full disclosure, I've never seen the original Lion King and
>haven't seen the remake. But there's near-universal praise for
>the storytelling in the cartoon and it was crafted to mint
>money by bringing in kids and families. So it's not unheard of
>for commercial films to also have marks of high-quality
>filmmaking. The Pixar movies are another example as are the
>Harry Potter films, at least the later ones.

i think most of my favorite movies fit that category. some of them were by directors toward the beginning of their career and the movies helped propel them to the stratosphere. others are just outright mainstream cinema that were right to find an audience and in most cases be well regarded years and generations later. gotta say, not a whole lot of these are remakes, sequels, or sequels to remakes, but i'm not a complete snob about enjoying those.


>To be fair, I don't take movies as seriously as I did in my
>twenties and not even in my thirties so I can't get worked up
>if a filmmaker decides to make a lot of money with a project.
>To me, it would only damage Jenkins' legacy if the movie
>wasn't very good.

which, with disney producing and getting the final cut, is a possibility, not to jinx jenx.


>Also, I get the sense that Barry is a child in the best way.
>Moonlight and Beale Street showed he has an extraordinary
>understanding of love and connection and how to portray that
>on film (or in pixels ;) I think that will serve him well on
>The Lion King.

you right.


>>>I actually think it's a good choice since his movies have a
>>>sense of genuineness and sincerity. Two qualities that
>ought
>>>to work in a children's movie.
>>
>>who would even see it with all the cgi?
>
>Ha! Again, I'd say the Pixar movies are an example of kids'
>movies (and CGI) done right. Having not seen the remake, I
>can't say to what degree audiences are just expecting too much
>of the technology or just disappointed CGI didn't have the
>charm of the cartoon.

the cgi was very impressive in the remake, to me anyway. i enjoyed it overall, i just found it mostly superfluous. the cartoon is one of my favorites. i like pixar, too, but they are original films or natural sequels, not live action or cgi remakes of catalog titles.