Jon Favreau explains how they got the lions so fluffy looking in Lion King

LionKing3
Spoilers for Lion King, but come on you know these already
Before we talk about this really wonderful interview that Jon Favreau did with Vanity Fair, I have to admit that I’ve never seen all of the original Lion King prior to this, just parts of it. (I know! I missed a lot of films while I was in college.) So while I knew the gist, the new movie was largely a surprise to me even though the plot was so close to the animated version. As a result I bawled through about half of it. (This mascara held up even though it’s not waterproof.) My friend didn’t cry as much because she knew the original by heart since her kids watched it so much. So that may be part of the reason I loved the movie, a lot of it was new-ish to me. Director Jon Favreau did an interview with Vanity Fair describing his process of remaking Lion King. He said that there were so many memorable parts, because it was so emotional, that he wanted to make sure to include the highlights! In a different interview, Favreau explained, “if you can capture the spirit but show them something new and surprising, that’s the best combo.” Here’s some of what he told Vanity Fair and you can see the video below. I learned quite a bit.

So many people have such a connection to the original film and I knew there were certain areas we had to stick to very closely to what was there already.

There’s a whole generation that grew up watching Lion King on a loop and it’s an emotional film and we tend to remember emotional stories more than we remember stories that don’t have that element. [I] prioritize the scenes that I remember the most. Before I go back and watch the movie again, I make a list of everything I remember from the movie. With Lion King that list is pages long. The trick is to make people feel like they saw the old movie when you show them a new one. If you show them the shots and the lines that they remember and the dialogue and the lines it ticks a box in their mind. Then you actually have a lot of latitude to depart from it when you get into areas that people don’t remember as clearly.

[From Vanity Fair YouTube video]

After that Favreau broke down the changes he made in the opening scene and to the visual. He said the visuals were made to appear long lens, with the background not in focus, to make it look more like a documentary. They also put a lot of work into making the fur look real. They tried to follow the laws of real physics for realism and you could tell! (You can see more clips here in this video.) I wanted to pet the lions they were so cute and fluffy. He talked a lot about lighting and physics and it reminded me of this channel of VFX artists describing their work and breaking down good and bad CGI. (My son introduced me to that.)

As for the memorable scenes, I’m a person who feels things deeply and I want to see movies which make me feel too. (Rocketman was like this! It wore its heart on its sleeve.) It sounds like Favreau was true to this aspect of the original and I appreciated that a lot. However I heard people coming out of the theater complaining that The Lion King was “intense.” That’s why I loved it. Intense movies are the best because you remember them as Favreau mentioned. Judging by the reviews, they’re not to everyone’s taste. At least both Lion King and Rocketman killed it at the box office so we’ll definitely get more of these type of films.

Here’s Favreau’s interview. I definitely see what Aunt May sees in him but I suspect he’s friend-zoned.

LionKing1

LionKing2

Photos credit: Disney

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

24 Responses to “Jon Favreau explains how they got the lions so fluffy looking in Lion King”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. LoonyTunes says:

    I saw it and loved it. Not sure what all the bellyaching is about. That being said, Beyoncé’s voice acting was painful. She was the weak link in an otherwise stellar cast.

    • maya8 says:

      I haven’t seen it (i’ll probably stream it when it’s available), but i got the same feeling about Beyonce just from the trailer. I mean, voice acting is hard, and if you’re not really a good actor, it’s not like you’re gonna be better at voice acting. I understand why they hired her and why she wanted to be in the movie, but they should have given her a smaller role, maybe Sarabi’s, she doesn’t say or do much.

    • Kaylah says:

      I would disagree. The trailers didn’t do the actual movie justice. I would actually say Donald Glover’s Simba was the weakest of the bunch. Chiwetiel, Young Nala, Young Simba and then Timon and Pumba were the best.
      Beyonce did very very well.

  2. Marjorie says:

    Meh it’s a good enough story, but I have always wondered why no version shows them eating a zebra or maybe a warthog.

    • alix baradat says:

      I’d say because it’s primarily aiming for kids and is a feel good story with anthropomorphic characters?

      If I remember correctly though, it’s made pretty clear the lions eat the other animals as the lionesses complain to Scar there’s nothing left to hunt (lol, got to love I still know this movie by heart, scenes by scenes, even though I’ve not seen it in nearly 15 years)

      I’m not sure I get this argument as well, like when people used to complain 24 was not realistic because Jack Bauer never went to the loo – I don’t want/need to see that, I do however very much want to be entertained

      • Erinn says:

        There’s a scene (that I just watched a clip of) with Timon warning Pumba that he’s going to get eaten by the lion if they rescue him. So I mean, it’s a thing that happens, clearly, it’s just not shown like you said.

        I mean, personally, I know animals need to eat eachother but I haaaaaate watching it in documentaries. It bums me out even though I’m an adult that understand that it’s just how things work. I can’t imagine a small child would be cool with it haha.

    • TheHufflepuffLizLemon says:

      There’s a scene in the original where Scar tosses the hyenas the back leg of a zebra, and Mufasa and Simba discuss how they eat the grass eaters, and how the grass is made up of nutrients from the predators bodies, so I guess that was enough.

      I watched the original last weekend with my son and I SOBBED through it, even knowing what happens. Watching Simba lift Mufasa’s paw and curl up against him, just like my son likes to curl up against his daddy… 💔

    • BeanieBean says:

      A realistic movie about lions would be beyond boring; pretty much all they do is sleep. Every now & again the females go out for a hunt, then the males come in & eat first, then the females & cubs. Then back to sleep again.

  3. Aang says:

    I’m going to skip this one. The original was perfect and the music from the original was perfect. Jeremy Irons IS Scar, a famous line from the original was even written specifically for Irons and I don’t ever want to hear anyone else try and voice that character. Also, no way cgi can match the expressiveness of animation and the trailer with Timon and Pumba didn’t impress. My $15 is not even a drop in the bucket and I know we’ve got years more of great movies being remade as flimsy imitations of themselves. They need to hire writers with new ideas.

  4. Mia4s says:

    Not having seen the original (or Broadway show) must help because I found this an absolute bore. Timon and Pumba were well done, and it was a nice version of Can You Feel the Love Tonight. Beyond that? Zzzzzzzzzzzz. I was sooooo bored.

  5. Slowsnow says:

    I understand that there are revisitations and re-interpretations of old classics and very well remember a commenter saying that Shakespeare is re-adapated over and over and no one bats an eye.
    However, when the adaptation is just a technical thing with a few new songs thrown in for good measure, it just makes me think that people are less and less capable of watching things that are more abstract. This CGIsation of images worries me because it makes people unwilling to dig deeper into their imaginations and intepret animated drawing, shadow theatre, elliptical narrative (everything is super gory now) which is a shame.
    Oh well, sounding like an old fart I suppose.

    • Diplomanatee says:

      It’s a super valid comment and a great observation! Now I’m worried about it a little because I remember when I was little, my mom tried to do this activity with me where she would cover the TV with a blanket and ask me to imagine what was happening going by the sound only. I just couldn’t handle it at the time. Now I look back on it and really appreciate the exercise.

      Not all is lost, podcasts and audiobooks are more and more of a thing now. Also, there’s this genius version of Pride and Prejudice, reimagined as a modern-day videoblog, on YouTube, The Lizzie Bennet Diaries: https://www.youtube.com/user/LizzieBennet

      • Slowsnow says:

        Thanks for th tip on the Lizzie Bennet diaries. It’s fun!
        Also, your mum is a genious. Love the blanket story. Totally something I’d do.

  6. Lucy says:

    I love JF. He just seems so kind.

  7. Kitten says:

    I don’t understand the comments at all. We saw it this weekend and absolutely loved it. It’s a reimagining of the original and it’s beautifully-done.
    *shrugs*

    • Erinn says:

      I can’t watch it haha. I teared up at the commercials. I looked at my husband and was like “it’s too much like Cricket (our kitten)” and being a die hard cat lady, I hate to see little cats of any species going through any sort of trouble.

      Honestly, I plan to watch the Timon and Pumba scenes – because they were the best in the cartoon. And Billy Eichner – someone needs to give that man an award. He is an absolute gem, and he’s SO good for Timon. Seth Rogan is pretty great too as Pumba.

    • Lightpurple says:

      In my effort to escape my unairconditioned home in the 100 degree heat, I went to see it Saturday afternoon. It was enjoyable, although Beyonce’s Nala annoyed me. It amazed me that an inability to act would show through voice work so much. But the others were all fine.

  8. ds says:

    Can someone who understands vfx better explain to me the live action part of the film. Even with this video I thought it was animation – mostly because of so many effects. I feel so stupid and would really love to know

    • Leriel says:

      It’s all effects, they didn’t even use motion capture (like Benedict Cumberbatch for Smaug, if you saw this videos of him doing dumb moves in grey suit). They just painted everything on computers – from landscape to fur.

  9. Case says:

    I saw it and really loved it. The visuals stunning, and I felt the realistic animation made the story a bit darker and more intense. I felt just as emotionally invested as I did in the original cartoon.

    I think the problem is that people are acting like this is a replacement for the original, when it’s really just a reimagining.