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.